[No. 11592. Department Two. - January 31, 1887.] HOME AND LOAN ASSOCIATES, RESPONDENT, v. AL. CHRISTINE JOHN H. WILKINS ET CHILDS ET AL., - APPEALS FROM DISTINCT ORDERS-ONE UNDERTAKING ON APPEAL — DISMISSAL FILING NEW UNDERTAKINGS. - Appeals taken from two distinct orders are each ineffectual and will be dismissed, when only one undertaking on appeal is filed, which fails to designate to which of the appeals it was intended to apply. In such a case the appellant is not authorized, under section 954 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to file new undertakings. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco vacating a prior order refusing a writ of assistance, and from an order granting a writ of assistance. Motion to dismiss appeals. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. E. A. & G. E. Lawrence, for Appellants. J. R. Brandon, for Respondent. THORNTON, J. Motion to dismiss appeals. In this case appellant took appeals from two orders, and filed one undertaking on appeal not distinctly referring to either appeal. The language used in the undertaking filed recites only one appeal without distinguishing which of the two appeals was referred to. The undertaking so filed is no undertaking at all. It is so ambiguous that it must be regarded as if none had been filed. (People v. Center, 61 Cal. 191; Corcoran v. Desmond, ante, p. 100. An application is made to this court by appellant to be allowed to file the proper undertakings under section 954, Code of Civil Procedure. The section referred to does not authorize it. It only authorizes a new undertakwhen the one filed is insufficient. But in this ing case there has really been none filed. To allow new ones to be filed would be in effect to permit a new appeal to be perfected after the time fixed by law. (Hastings v. Halleck, 10 Cal. 31.) Application to file other undertakings denied, and the appeals dismissed. MCFARLAND, J., and SHARPSTEIN, J., concurred. Hearing in Bank denied. [No. 9914. In Bank.―January 31, 1887.] BOYS' AND GIRLS' AID SOCIETY, RESPONDENT, v. CHRISTIAN REIS, TREASURER, ETC., APPELLANT. COMMITMENT OF MINOR CRIMINALS TO PRIVATE REFORMATORY INSTITUTIONS - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ACT OF MARCH 15, 1883. The act of March 15, 1883, section 1388 of the Penal Code, - providing in effect that when a minor has been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony, the court may suspend judgment, and commit him to the custody of the officers of some non-sectarian charitable corporation, conducted for the purpose of reclaiming criminal minors, and may, in its discretion, direct the payment of the expenses for the maintenance of such minor, not exceeding a specified amount, by the county where the criminal proceeding is pending, is not in conflict either with article 4, section 22, of the constitution, prohibiting the drawing of money from the state treasury for the benefit of any corporation not under the exclusive management of the state; or with article 9, section 8, prohibiting the appropriation of public money for the support of any schools not under the exclusive control of the officers of the public schools; or with article 11, section 13, prohibiting the delegation of municipal functions to private corporations; or with article 1, section 11, requiring that all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation. ID. POLICE JUDGE'S COURT MAY COMMIT. - The Police Judge's Court of the city and county of San Francisco is a court within the meaning of section 1388 of the Penal Code, and may exercise the jurisdiction granted by that section. ID. ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF MINOR'S EXPENSES - APPROVAL BY SUPERVISORS NOT NECESSARY. - - An order of such court for the payment out of the city and county treasury of the sum provided for in the statutes is not an exercise of the right of taxation without representation; and where such an order is made, it is the duty of the treasurer to comply therewith, notwithstanding the demand has not been first approved by the board of supervisors. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The proceeding was for a writ of mandate to compel the defendant, as treasurer of the city and county of San Francisco, to pay to the petitioner out of the city and county treasury the sum of $1,275, being the amount called for by fifty-one several orders of the Police Judge's Court of the city and county, issued in favor of the petitioner at divers times between the 25th of July, 1883, and August 3, 1884, in pursuance of the authority conferred by section 1388 of the Penal Code. The further facts are stated in the opinion. John L. Love, for Appellant. Lloyd Baldwin, John A. Stanley, and E. F. Swortfiguer, for Respondent. FOOTE, C. This is an appeal from a judgment ordering a peremptory writ of mandate to issue commanding the defendant, treasurer, etc., forthwith to pay out of the treasury of the city and county of San Francisco certain sums of money. The defendant urges that the statute enacted by the legislature, dated the fifteenth day of March, 1883, adding a new section to the Penal Code, to be known as section 1388, is unconstitutional. The said act is to be found in the statutes of 1883, page 377. He also contends that the statute in question does not contemplate that the treasurer of said city and county should have incumbent on him as a mere ministerial duty the payment of the demands on the treasury by the direction of the court. Section 1388 of the Penal Code is as follows: "Final judgment may be suspended on any conviction, charge, or prosecution for misdemeanor or felony, where, in the judgment of the court in which such proceeding is pending, there is a reasonable ground to believe that such minor may be reformed, and that a commitment to prison would work manifest injury in the premises. Such suspension may be for as long a period as the circumstances of the case may seem to warrant, and subject to the following further provisions: During the period of such suspension, or of any extension thereof, the court or judge may, under such limitations as may seem advisable, commit such minor to the custody of the officers or managers of any strictly non-sectarian charitable corporation conducted for the purpose of reclaiming criminal minors. Such corporation, by its officers or managers, may accept the custody of such minor for a period of two months (to be further extended by the court or judge should it be deemed advisable), and should said minor be found incorrigible and incapable of reformation, he may be returned before the court for final judgment for his misdemeanor. Such charitable corporation shall accept custody of said minor, as aforesaid, . upon the distinct agreement that it and its officers shall use all reasonable means to effect the reformation of such minor, and provide him with a home and instruction. No application for guardianship of such minor by any person, parent, or friend shall be entertained by any court during the period of such suspension and custody, save upon recommendation of the court before which the criminal proceedings are pending first obtained. Such court may further, in its discretion, direct the payment of the expenses of the maintenance of such minor during such period of two months, not to exceed, in the aggregate, the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25), which sum shall include board, clothing, transportation, and all other expenses, to be paid by the county where such criminal proceeding is pending, or direct action to be instituted for the recovery thereof out of the estate of said minor, or from his parents. Such court may also revoke such order of suspension at any time.” In support of his first contention, the defendant argues that the act is in contravention of section 22 of article 4, section 8 of article 9, section 13 of article 11, and section 11 of article 1 of the constitution of this state. They are as follows, respectively: Sec. 22, art 4: "No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and upon warrants duly drawn thereon by the controller; and no money shall ever be appropriated or drawn from the state treasury for the use or benefit of any corporation, association, asylum, hospital, or other institution not under the exclusive management and control of the state as a state institution, nor shall any grant or donation of property ever be made thereto by the state; provided, that notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other section of this constitution, the legislature shall have power to grant aid to institutions conducted for the support and maintenance of minor orphans or half-orphans, or abandoned children, or aged persons in indigent circumstances, such aid to be granted by a uniform rule, and proportion to the number of inmates of such respective institutions; provided further, that the state shall have at any time the right to inquire into the management of such institutions; provided further, that whenever any county, or city and county, or city, or town shall provide for the support of minor orphans, or half-orphans, or abandoned children, or aged persons in indigent circumstances, such county, city and county, city or town shall be entitled to receive the same pro rata appropriations as may be granted to such institutions under church or other control. An accurate statement of the receipts and expenditures of public moneys shall be attached to and published with the laws at every regular session of the legislature." Sec. 8, art. 9. "No public money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any sectarian or denomina |