Chapman, Application of
| Decision Date | 09 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5648 |
| Citation | 141 Cal.App.2d 387,295 P.2d 573 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Matter of the Application of Gloria Dean CHAPMAN, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
Brown & Ayers, Los Angeles, for applicant.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Los Angeles, David D. Mix, Deputy County Counsel, Granada Hills, for respondent Sheriff.
S. W. Spizer, Huntington Park, for real party in interest, Marvin A. Chapman.
This is an application for relief under habeas corpus from a commitment of the petitioner on a judgment finding her guilty of contempt of court.
The charges arose out of a divorce action. Petitioner herein filed a complaint in divorce against Marvin A. Chapman on or about July 27, 1955. An order to show cause was issued and at a hearing thereon the husband was ordered restrained from annoying, harassing or molesting the wife in any manner. The husband made no appearance at the divorce trial on September 28, 1955, and the court granted an interlocutory decree of divorce to the wife wherein, among other things, the court awarded the four minor children of the parties to the wife, ordered the husband to pay support and maintenance for the children and the wife's attorney's fees. The husband was restrained substantially as under the previous order. On October 3, 1955, an interlocutory judgment of divorce was signed and filed on October 4, 1955.
The husband, on or about February 9, 1956, executed an affidavit for an order to show cause in re modification of the interlocutory judgment of divorce. His affidavit was filed on February 14, 1956, and the court made an order on the same day directing the wife to appear and show cause why the interlocutory judgment of divorce should not be modified in respect to the custody of the children. The matter of the custody was thereafter, pursuant to a stipulation, referred to a court investigator and the cause was continued for hearing. On March 28, 1956, the date to which the matter was ultimately continued, the attorneys for the parties stipulated in writing that 'the above entitled cause may be tried by Francis A. Cochran, an attorney, and member of the bar of this state in accordance with the constitutional provisions'. The selection of Cochran as judge pro tempore was approved and ordered by the judge of Department 8 of the Superior Court. The cause was then transferred to Department 8b for hearing. Testimony was taken and the judge pro tempore ordered that the interlocutory decree of divorce be modified so as to provide that the custody of the minor children be awarded to the husband, the wife to have the right to reasonable visitations. The wife was ordered to deliver the four minor children to the husband on or before April 5, 1956.
On April 9, 1956, the husband made an affidavit, the substance of which is that the wife would not deliver the children to him nor tell where the children were nor permit him to have them; that she would go to jail first before she would tell where the children were. An order to show cause was signed by the judge of Department 8 on April 10, 1956, wherein the wife was directed to appear before the court in Department 8 on the 19th of April, 1956, at 1:45 o'clock p. m., then and there to show cause why she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt of court and punished accordingly for wilfully disobeying the order of March 28, 1956.
On April 19, 1956, the matter of the contempt proceedings of the wife was apparently transferred to Department 8b, although there is no minute order in the file so indicating. The minutes of Department 8b recite that at 3:15 o'clock p. m. the parties and their attorneys were present and testimony was taken before Francis A. Cochran, judge pro tempore. The minutes further set forth that the court found that the wife wilfully refused to deliver the children to the husband or to tell him of their whereabouts in accordance with the order theretofore made; that she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClenny v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
...The court would have no jurisdiction and no power to punish without the initiation of the proper proceeding.' (See also, In re Chapman, 141 Cal.App.2d 387, 295 P.2d 573; In re Wales, 153 Cal.App.2d 117, 315 P.2d 433; Petition of Crystal, 330 Mass. 583, 116 N.E.2d 255, 258; Cheney v. Richard......
-
Bell v. Hongisto
...These remedies limit the inquiry of the reviewing court solely to questions of the inferior court's jurisdiction. In re Chapman,141 Cal.App.2d 387, 295 P.2d 573 (1956). The term 'jurisdiction' covers a great deal of ground, however, for the questions of whether a petitioner's alleged acts c......
-
People v. Oaxaca
...parties was constitutionally required for one not occupying the office of judge to serve as a temporary judge. (In re Chapman (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 387, 390 (295 P.2d 573); In re Wales (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 117, 119 (315 P.2d 433).) To the extent that Martin v. Martin (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d ......
-
Bongfeldt, In re
...to render the judgment under review. (Crosswhite v. Municipal Court, 260 Cal.App.2d 428, 431, 67 Cal.Rptr. 216; In re Chapman, 141 Cal.App.2d 387, 389--390, 295 P.2d 573; In re Lake, 65 Cal.App. 420, 424, 224 P. 126.) The determination of this question ordinarily as here, depends on whether......