18 Cal.2d 884, 16575, Kreling v. Superior Court

Docket Nº:16575
Citation:18 Cal.2d 884, 118 P.2d 470
Opinion Judge:[9] Gibson
Party Name:Kreling v. Superior Court
Attorney:[7] John J. Taaffe and Leo R. Friedman for Petitioners. [8] Earl Warren, Attorney General, and Warren Olney, Burdette J. Daniels and Herbert E. Wenig, Deputies Attorney General, for Respondents.
Case Date:November 01, 1941
Court:Supreme Court of California

Page 884

18 Cal.2d 884

118 P.2d 470

MARTIN KRELING et al., Petitioners,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY et al., Respondents. [Crim. No. 4353.]

In re MARTIN KRELING et al., on Habeas Corpus.

S. F. No. 16575.

Supreme Court of California

Nov. 1, 1941

In Bank.

COUNSEL

John J. Taaffe and Leo R. Friedman for Petitioners.

Page 885

Earl Warren, Attorney General, and Warren Olney, Burdette J. Daniels and Herbert E. Wenig, Deputies Attorney General, for Respondents.

OPINION

[118 P.2d 471] GIBSON, C.J.

In these consolidated cases petitioners seek to challenge the validity of a judgment of contempt issued against them by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The judgment of contempt arose out of a proceeding in equity in which the Attorney General sought to enjoin the wide-spread activities of the Annenberg racing news service throughout the state. The complaint for an injunction alleged that the Annenberg organization was composed of numerous branches throughout the United States, and that it was engaged in furnishing supplies and facilities used in the illegal operation of bookmaking and pool selling establishments maintained for wagering on horse races. The complaint named 112 specific persons as defendants, 99 unknown persons as John Does and five unknown corporations. Petitioners herein were sued fictitiously as John Doe Twenty-eight and John Doe Thirty, respectively, and their proper names were inserted later by amendment to the complaint. In the action of People v. Annenberg, Superior Court of Los Angeles, Number 451,935, the Attorney General obtained a temporary restraining order which enjoined these petitioners and others from engaging in any acts in furtherance of their conspiracy to furnish information, materials and facilities for the illegal operation of bookmaking establishments. Thereafter the superior court found upon the basis of affidavits and testimony introduced by the Attorney General that petitioners had wilfully and intentionally violated the terms of the restraining order. Petitioners were adjudged guilty of contempt of court upon 148 separate counts, and each petitioner was sentenced to pay an aggregate fine of $29,600 and also to serve 296 days in the county jail.

Petitioners seek, in S. F. 16,575, to have the order adjudging them guilty of contempt annulled upon a writ of certiorari. It is...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP