People v. Crespi
Citations
- 115 Cal. 50
- 46 P. 863
- 1896 Cal. LEXIS 969
Syllabus
<p>Criminal Law—Criminal Libel—Preliminary Examination—Jurisdiction of Police Court and Judges.—The police court of the city and county of San Francisco, and police judges sitting as magistrates, have jurisdiction to hold a preliminary examination of a defendant charged with the offense of criminal libel, although the police court has no jurisdiction to try that offense.</p> <p>Id.—Magistrates—Source of Authority—Jurisdiction.—Magistrates, as defined and enumerated in the Penal Code, including police judges in towns and cities, derive their powers and jurisdiction from the constitution, operating with the acts of the legislature upon the subject; and judges, when sitting as magistrates, have the jurisdiction and powers conferred by law upon magistrates, and not those which pertain to their respective judicial offices.</p> <p>Id.—Examination of Complaining Witness by Defendant—Conspiracy —Impeachment.—Where part of the libelous matter charged was that the complaining witness, who was a newspaper editor and proprietor, was paid by a dishonest and dishonorable cabal or confederation of Italians, known as “ the Camorra,” to libel and vilify certain people, and such complaining witness was called to the stand as a witness for the defendant, and asked, with specifications of time, place, and persons present, if he had not stated that he had instituted the proseeutiou of the defendant at the instance of others, to which he answered that he had not, the defendant cannot be permitted to impeach his own witness by proof that he had made such statement.</p> <p>Id.—Dishonest Character of Camorra—Conspiring Druggists—Rebutting Evidence—Testimony of Physician.—Where, for the purpose of showing the dishonest character of the camorra, with which the complaining witness was stated to have conspired, evidence was introduced to show the improper making of money by druggists of the city who were connected with the camorra, and with a benevolent society controlled by it, through the fur
Judges: Henshaw
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
28 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- People v. MehaffeyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1948-09-03· cited 115×
- People v. NewsonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1951-04-27· cited 55×
- People v. ToneyCalifornia Supreme Court· 2004-01-22· cited 42×
- People v. CohenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-09-08· cited 39×
- Stanley v. Justice CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1976-02-13· cited 35×
- People v. WoodsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1993-02-01· cited 32×
- State v. FergusonSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1925-06-30· cited 28×
- In Re MoreheadCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1951-11-07· cited 24×
- People v. BelknapCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1974-09-25· cited 24×
- Koski v. JamesCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1975-04-22· cited 21×
- Wells v. Justice CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1960-05-23· cited 20×
- People v. LeBeauCalifornia Supreme Court· 1952-06-20· cited 19×
- People v. FlemingCalifornia Supreme Court· 1981-07-20· cited 18×
- In Re GeerCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1980-08-08· cited 18×
- People v. RandallCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1973-12-12· cited 18×
- People v. HawkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1978-10-30· cited 18×
- People v. Columbia Research Corp.Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California· 1980-03-03· cited 12×
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1951-05-18· cited 10×
- Sheridan v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court· 1962-04-25· cited 10×
- Amos v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1960-06-30· cited 10×
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.