People v. Gray
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. John G. North, Earl Rogers, and Kendrick & North, for Appellant. Tirey L. Ford, Attorney-General, A. A. Moore, Jr., Deputy Attorney-General, and Lyman Evans, District Attorney, for Respondent.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
The defendant was indicted for and convicted of the crime of seduction under promise of marriage ; and the judgment of the court below was, that he should be punished by a fine, and in default of payment thereof by imprisonment in the county jail at the rate of two dollars per day, etc. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
In our opinion the contention of appellant that the offense of which he was convicted was barred by section 801 of the Penal Code must be sustained; and, therefore, it was not necessary to consider the many other points which he…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People v. SalorseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- People v. PicettiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- People v. AyhensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- People v. CornellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- People v. PeriniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by10 opinions
- Doble v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- People v. Sacramento Butchers' Protective Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- In Re SullivanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- In Re O'SheaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Ex Parte BlakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.