Cites People v. Ballas — APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tolo County and from an order denying a new trial. W. A. Anderson, Judge. Reversed.
The case involved defendant Vito Gerundo, who was charged in Napa County with four counts of forging and uttering counterfeit checks drawn on a Napa bank, purportedly signed by local individuals and made payable to a Masonic publication or cash. After a jury trial, Gerundo was convicted on all counts, and the trial court imposed concurrent sentences. On appeal, Gerundo argued lack of jurisdiction over two counts because the checks were delivered in San Francisco, erroneous jury instructions on other forgeries, and improper admission of papers found in his trailer. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that jurisdiction existed in Napa County because the checks were presented and dishonored there, the instructions were not prejudicial, and the evidence was properly admitted for intent purposes with limiting instructions.
The case involved defendant Gerundo's jury conviction for theft of an automobile under Penal Code section 484, followed by his appeal from the judgment and the denial of his motion for a new trial. Gerundo, representing himself, raised 23 claims on appeal, including challenges to the constitutionality of section 484, the use of an information to charge him, the adequacy of appointed counsel, sufficiency of evidence at the preliminary hearing, jury instructions, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and various due process violations. The court rejected these arguments, noting that many issues such as the statute's validity and charging by information had been settled in prior cases, that Gerundo had refused offered counsel, that the record did not support claims of error in instructions or evidence handling, and that no conspiracy or other misconduct was shown. It therefore affirmed the judgment and the order denying a new trial.
In Smith v. Finley, plaintiffs sued the administrator of a deceased driver's estate for negligence after a 1949 car accident injured one plaintiff and his horse; the defendant conceded negligence but argued the action abated because Civil Code section 956, allowing survival of personal injury claims against a wrongdoer's estate, took effect after the accident. The trial court awarded damages of $1,653.26 to the injured plaintiff and $334 for the horse, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that because section 956 was in effect when the tortfeasor died, the plaintiffs' valid cause of action survived against the estate, distinguishing this from prior precedent where the statute was not yet effective at death. Damages for the horse were upheld based on expert veterinary testimony about its pre- and post-injury value, with no contrary evidence presented at trial.
The case involved Iowa Manufacturing Company, an Iowa-based corporation, seeking a writ of prohibition to stop the Superior Court of Sacramento County from proceeding in a damages action for conversion of construction equipment brought by American River Sand and Gravel Company. Iowa Company argued it was not subject to service of process in California because it was a foreign corporation that had not consented to such service and was not doing business in the state. The court denied the writ, holding that Iowa Company's appointment of a California dealer, assignment of conditional sales contracts, shipment of equipment, acceptance of payments via drafts, and dispatch of a factory representative constituted sufficient presence and business activity in California to make it amenable to civil process there. The decision relied on precedents emphasizing practical business advantages derived from in-state representation and the fairness of allowing suit in the state where the injured party resides and the transactions occurred.
In Todd v. Standfield, plaintiffs Abraham and Ida Mae Todd sued Roy Standfield and truck owner C.A. Makin for negligence after Standfield backed a flatbed truck with protruding steel rods onto a public highway, colliding with Mrs. Todd's car and causing her serious injuries along with property damage. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $20,000 in damages, and the trial court denied the defendants' motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The defendants appealed, arguing contributory negligence by Mrs. Todd, errors in jury instructions, and excessive damages. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence supported no contributory negligence as a matter of law under Vehicle Code section 553 requiring drivers entering a highway from a private driveway to yield the right of way, that the given instructions adequately covered the defendants' legal contentions, and that the damages award was not so excessive as to indicate passion or prejudice given the documented head, back, and other injuries requiring extended medical treatment and causing ongoing effects.
The case involved the County of Nevada suing defendants Phillips and Boswell for negligently damaging a county bridge with a truck. Defendants moved to change venue to another county under Code of Civil Procedure section 394, claiming that actions brought by a county must be tried elsewhere, but the trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial, reasoning that the statute requires a venue change only when defendants reside in a different county, and the record showed no evidence that these defendants were not residents of Nevada County, as they were served there and made no contrary showing.
