Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

THE PEOPLE v. MULLINS

         JUDGES: Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Terry, C. J., and Field, J., concurring.

         OPINION

          BURNETT, Judge

         The indictment in this case purports to be found by the grand jury of the County of Sacramento. The indictment was found on the sixth day of May, 1858, and the Act of the Legislature, approved April 24th, 1858, to incorporate the city and county of Sacramento, took effect on the first day of May, 1858. The defendant moved, in the Court below, to set aside the indictment, upon the ground, that it was not found by a legal grand jury--there being no organization known as the County of Sacramento.

         It is true the Act creates a corporation under the name and style of the " City and County of Sacramento; " but it was not the intention of the Legislature to repeal the law by which the County of Sacramento was created. The territory of the County of Sacramento includes the city; but the city forms but a portion of the county. Their respective limits are kept distinct in the Act, and the powers of the Board of Supervisors are different in respect to the two. The County and city constitute a corporation for some purposes, while they are distinct as to others. The grand jury was properly empanneled as of the County of Sacramento.

         Judgment affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

People v. Mullins
(Jul 1, 1858)