People v. Ah Sum
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
Appellant was tried and convicted upon an information charging him with perjury com*649mitted as follows: That on the fourth day of April, A. D. 1890, there was pending and on trial in the police court of the city of Oakland “a certain action and proceeding wherein the people of the state of California were plaintiffs and said Ah Sum was defendant, and said court, having competent jurisdiction to hear, decide, and determine said trial, action, and proceeding according to the laws of the state of California, was then and there fully empowered to administer the law in said trial, action, and…
2Cited by5 opinions
- In Re LockettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Stevens v. KobayshiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Lau Fook Kau v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929
- People v. CarrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- People v. BeeslyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931