In Re Ajuria

California Supreme Court

In Re Ajuria

207 P. 516, 188 Cal. 799, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 487

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 22, 1922

DocketCrim. No. 2472.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 207 P. 516 (In Re Ajuria) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Ajuria, 207 P. 516, 188 Cal. 799, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 487 (Cal. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The petitioners are imprisoned after conviction upon a charge of violating an ordinance of the city of Marysville declaring it unlawful for any person to have in his possession any intoxicating liquors.

The complaint on which they were convicted is not presented to us and we must therefore presume that it sufficiently charges the offense. We have, heretofore, had similar attacks made upon local ordinances of this character and our decisions therein are against the petitioners on all the points presented in this case with relation to the *800 validity of this ordinance. (See In re Polizzotto, ante, p. 410 [205 Pac. 676]; People v. Collins, 54 Cal. App. 531 [202 Pac. 344]; People v. Capelli, 55 Cal. App. 461 [203 Pac. 837]; Ex parte Kinney, 53 Cal. App. 792 [200 Pac. 967], and Ex parte Volpi, 53 Cal. App. 229 [199 Pac. 1090].)

The claim that the judgment is void because the intoxicating liquor was found on the premises without previously having obtained a search-warrant for the discovery thereof is answered by the decision in People v. Mayen, ante, p. 237 [205 Pac. 435], On the authority of these cases the petition is denied.

Shaw, C. J., Wilbur, J., Shurtleff, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., and Lennon, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

The petitioners are imprisoned after conviction upon a charge of violating an ordinance of the city of Marysville declaring it unlawful for any person to have in his possession any intoxicating liquors.

The complaint on which they were convicted is not presented to us and we must therefore presume that it sufficiently charges the offense. We have, heretofore, had similar attacks made upon local ordinances of this character and our decisions therein are against the petitioners on all the points presented in this case with relation to the *800 validity of this ordinance. (See In re Polizzotto, ante, p. 410 [205 Pac. 676]; People v. Collins, 54 Cal. App. 531 [202 Pac. 344]; People v. Capelli, 55 Cal. App. 461 [203 Pac. 837]; Ex parte Kinney, 53 Cal. App. 792 [200 Pac. 967], and Ex parte Volpi, 53 Cal. App. 229 [199 Pac. 1090].)

The claim that the judgment is void because the intoxicating liquor was found on the premises without previously having obtained a search-warrant for the discovery thereof is answered by the decision in People v. Mayen, ante, p. 237 [205 Pac. 435], On the authority of these cases the petition is denied.

Shaw, C. J., Wilbur, J., Shurtleff, J., Lawlor, J., Sloane, J., and Lennon, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 P. 516, 188 Cal. 799, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ajuria-cal-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack