Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Cal. 176

People v. Peralta

California Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1854

California Supreme Court · decided 1854-04-15

<p>Eueotok, Residence oe__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 consti- ' tute an elector.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1904

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1854-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Heydeneeldt

¶1delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court.

Mr. Cb, J. Murray concurred.

¶2Upon tbe trial below, one of tbe jurors, on examination as to bis competency, answered tbat be considered bimself a resident of Sbasta County, although be bad been living in Contra Costa (tbe county of tbe trial) for tbe past five weeks. He was sworn, notwithstanding tbe objection of tbe defendants.

¶3Tbe statute of this State requires tbe juror to be an elector of tbe county for which be is summoned, and be cannot be an elector unless be is a resident.

¶4Residence depends upon intention as well as fact, [176] and mere * inhabitancy for a short period, against tbe intention of acquiring a domicil, would not make a resident within tbe meaning of tbe law, so as to constitute an elector. Tbe juror should have been excluded from serving, and for tbe error in admitting him, tbe judgment is reversed, and tbe cause remanded.

/4/cal/176 · .json · Public domain