Summary

Joseph McKenna Ross v. Aguirre — Opinion of the Court

By the Constitution of the state of California no person can be held for a crime unless on information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or an indictment by a grand jury. Const. 1879, § 8. By §§ 204 to 211, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure of the state (prior to the amendments hereinafter stated) , it was made the duty of each of the superior courts of the state to fix, by order, the number of grand jurors and trial jurors required for the transaction of business and the trial of causes during the ensuing year
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna Ross v. Aguirre — Opinion of the Court

We accept the conclusion. It has support, if it need any, in Beach v. Von Detten, decided by the supreme court of California, June 26, 1903 (73 Pac. 187) , where it was held (we quote from the syllabus) that 'the title of an amendatory act which gives the title of the original act in full, and the number of the section in its amended form, is sufficient.' People ex rel. Atty. Gen.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna Ross v. Aguirre — Opinion of the Court

It has but one purpose and contains but one subject. It amends particular sections; it does not revise a whole code.
In People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Parvin, 74 Cal. 549, 16 Pac. 490, an act was considered with the following title: 'An Act to Amend Section 3481 of the Political Code.' The case was not unqualifiedly approved in Lewis v. Dunne. It was not, however, overruled, and it seems to be an irresistible conclusion from the action of the supreme court of the state in denying the application of petitioner, that the act of 1893 was not ruled by Lewis v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature