
    [No. 10,217.]
    THE PEOPLE ex rel. WRIGHT v. BOOKER, District Judge.
    Power of District Judge. — If a writ of habeas corpus is issued by the Supreme Court, returnable before a judge of a District Court, the measure of authority of the judge is the same as would have been that of the Supreme Court if the writ had been made returnable before the latter tribunal.
    Application to the Supreme Court to review an order of the district judge of the Fifth Judicial District, admitting Miner Walden to bail pending his appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Stanislaus County convicting him of a crime.
    
      At the January term of said County Court, held in January, 1876, Miner Walden was indicted for a felony alleged to have been committed by altering the ballots cast at a precinct in said county, with intent to change the result of an election, held on the 1st day of September, 1875, for State senator. On his trial he was convicted, and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
    The court ordered the writ to issue, and made it returnable before S. A. Booker, the judge of the Fifth Judicial District, in which district Stanislaus County is included. The judge admitted the prisoner to bail. C. 0. Wright, the district attorney of Stanislaus County, petitioned the Supreme Court to review the order of the district judge, as in excess of jurisdiction. The county judge had refused to admit Walden to bail before the application to the Supreme Court-.
    
      C. C. Wright, for the writ.
   By the Court:

The petition to review the proceedings of the district judge of the Fifth Judicial District must be denied. The -writ upon which the judge of that court admitted Walden to bail, pending his appeal to this court, originally issued from this court, and by our direction was made returnable before the judge of the District Court, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution (article six, section four), and in such case the measure of authority of the officer before whom the writ is returned is the same as ours would have been had the writ been returned before us, and within the rule laid down in Ex parte Marks (49 Cal. 680). It results that the order of the district judge now sought to be reviewed was not in excess of his authority.

Petition dismissed.  