—the high court considered whether a false imprisonment claim based on allegations of physical restraint by the defendant, is an action " `for injury to person'"which can be brought" `where the injury occurs.'"

Points raised for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered unless there is a good cause showing for failure to present them earlier

Another contention made for the first time in appellants' reply brief and therefore not entitled to consideration as no good reason is shown for the delay

Where defendant is a California resident, venue will generally be proper only in the county of his residence

In a prosecution for this crime it is not necessary to prove in the first instance that the imprisonment was unlawful since when it has been proven that there was an imprisonment the law presumes it to have been unlawful and the burden is cast upon the defendant to justify the imprisonment by proof that it was lawful

It found that a contrary holding "would be in clear derogation of the right of a defendant to have an action brought against him [or her] tried in the county of his [or her] residence, `an ancient and valuable right, safe-guarded by statute and supported by a long line of decisions.'[Citation

The plaintiff need not anticipate and negative the many situations in which this kind of an arrest is privileged; these are matters of defense

The court held it is not— "[t] he specific terms indicate that the injuries to person within the contemplation of the [L] egislature were those which cause physical injury or incapacity or which result in death

Appellant should present all points upon which he relies for reversal in his opening brief and we are fully justified in refusing to consider the other arguments so tardily made

It is the general rule, which is here applicable, that matters presented for the first time in an appellant's closing or reply brief will not be considered by an appellate court