From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Peralta

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1854
4 Cal. 175 (Cal. 1854)

Opinion

         Appeal from the Court of Sessions of Contra Costa County.

         COUNSEL

          Carpentier, for the Appellant.

          McConnell, Attorney-General, for Respondent.


         JUDGES: Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

         OPINION

          HEYDENFELDT, Judge

         Upon the trial below, one of the jurors, on examination as to his competency, answered that he considered himself a resident of Shasta County, although he had been living in Contra Costa (the county of the trial) for the past five weeks. He was sworn, notwithstanding the objection of the defendants.

         The statute of this State requires the juror to be an elector of the county for which he is summoned, and he cannot be an elector unless he is a resident.

         Residence depends upon intention as well as fact, and mere inhabitancy for a short period, against the intention of acquiring a domicil, would not make a resident within the meaning of the law, so as to constitute an elector. The juror should have been excluded from serving, and for the error in admitting him, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.


Summaries of

People v. Peralta

Supreme Court of California
Apr 1, 1854
4 Cal. 175 (Cal. 1854)
Case details for

People v. Peralta

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DOMINGO PERALTA, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Apr 1, 1854

Citations

4 Cal. 175 (Cal. 1854)

Citing Cases

Prescott v. Prescott

Residence depends upon intention. (People v. Peralta , 4 Cal. 175; People v. Stonesifer , 6 Cal. 410.)…

Bennett v. Bennett

The whole question is elaborately discussed in Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, Secs. 150, 709, 720, 721,…