Ex parte Brown
Citations
- 97 Cal. 83
- 31 P. 840
- 1892 Cal. LEXIS 763
Syllabus
<p>Contempt—Disregard op Unlawful Order—Excess of Jurisdiction — Habeas Corpus. •—No court or judge has power to punish as a contempt the violation or disregard of an unlawful order, and to attempt to do so by means of imprisonment is an excess of jurisdiction, remed'able by the writ of habeas corpus.</p> <p>Id. — Custody of Ballots — Duty of Registrar — Jurisdiction of Magistrate — Criminal Law — Eraud by Inspector of Election. — Sections 1285 and 1266 of the Political Code, providing for the preservation and custody of the ballots cast at an election, impose upon the clerk or registrar the duty of keeping the packages of ballots unopened and unaltered for twelve months, after which time he is to burn them, unless a contest has been commenced in some tribunal of competent jurisdiction; and no magistrate has the power, in a criminal prosecution against an inspector of election accused of fraud in the conduct of the election, to compel the registrar or clerk to produce and open the packages; and an order adjudging the registrar guilty of contempt of court in refusing to produce and open them, and committing him to imprisonment therefor, is void, and the prisoner will be released upon a writ of habeas corpus.</p> <p>Id.—Jurisdiction of Courts—Compelling Production of Best Evidence— Exception—Power of Legislature — Preservation of Ballots for Election Contests. — As a general principle, all courts have the power to compel the production of the best evidence within the reach of their process, and material to the issue to be tried, and the parties to the litigation have a right to the production of such evidence for the enforcement or the defense of their rights, yet it is within the power of the legislature to set such principle aside, in pursuance of a policy which it deems of paramount importance, and they have set aside that principle, in pursuance of the paramount object to preserve the best evidence of the actual vote cast at an election, and to protect it until it
Judges: Beatty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Kreling v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1941-11-01· cited 33×
- Oksner v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1964-09-15· cited 26×
- State ex rel. Von Stade v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri· 1909-05-22· cited 15×
- People v. Lee C. (In re Estate of Lee C.)California Court of Appeals, 5th District· 2017-12-29· cited 12×
- Stradford v. ReineckeAppellate Court of Illinois· 1955-09-13· cited 9×
- Carroll v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1933-06-14· cited 7×
- Sone v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Missouri· 1895-11-19· cited 7×
- Farnham v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1961-01-24· cited 4×
- Ex parte PahiaHawaii Supreme Court· 1901-08-26· cited 2×
- Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionTexas Attorney General Reports· 1946-07-02
- Untitled Texas Attorney General OpinionTexas Attorney General Reports· 1941-07-02
- Conservatorship of Lee C.California Court of Appeal· 2017-12-29
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.