In Re Anderson

California Court of Appeal

In Re Anderson

123 P. 972, 18 Cal. App. 593, 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 402

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 1, 1912

DocketCrim. No. 233.

StatusPublished

This text of 123 P. 972 (In Re Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Anderson, 123 P. 972, 18 Cal. App. 593, 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

JAMES, J.

Petitioner herein, after having been convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Pasadena designed to regulate the standing of public carriages on the streets of said city, and after having been imprisoned in default of payment of a fine imposed by the police court, petitioned for release upon habeas corpus. In his petition he assigned as ground thereof that the ordinance under which his conviction was had is unconstitutional and void. Although time was allowed petitioner within which to file a brief and point out wherein the provisions of the ordinance are in conflict with the constitution, no brief has been filed and no authorities cited in support of the petition. We conceive it not to be the duty of this court to seek for some cause which shall result in nullifying the ordinance on the ground proposed by petitioner. An inspection- of the ordinance does not disclose any apparent infirmity of the kind suggested, and with that conclusion we shall rest content, unless differently convinced in a case where the contentions here made are supported by argument or authority. Courts will not hold statutes or ordinances unconstitutional unless it is clearly shown that they are inconsistent with the fundamental law. (Deyoe v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. 476, [98 Am. St. Rep. 73, 74 Pac. 28].)

The writ is discharged and the prisoner remanded to the custody of the chief of police of the city of Pasadena.

Allen, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

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

JAMES, J.

Petitioner herein, after having been convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Pasadena designed to regulate the standing of public carriages on the streets of said city, and after having been imprisoned in default of payment of a fine imposed by the police court, petitioned for release upon habeas corpus. In his petition he assigned as ground thereof that the ordinance under which his conviction was had is unconstitutional and void. Although time was allowed petitioner within which to file a brief and point out wherein the provisions of the ordinance are in conflict with the constitution, no brief has been filed and no authorities cited in support of the petition. We conceive it not to be the duty of this court to seek for some cause which shall result in nullifying the ordinance on the ground proposed by petitioner. An inspection- of the ordinance does not disclose any apparent infirmity of the kind suggested, and with that conclusion we shall rest content, unless differently convinced in a case where the contentions here made are supported by argument or authority. Courts will not hold statutes or ordinances unconstitutional unless it is clearly shown that they are inconsistent with the fundamental law. (Deyoe v. Superior Court, 140 Cal. 476, [98 Am. St. Rep. 73, 74 Pac. 28].)

The writ is discharged and the prisoner remanded to the custody of the chief of police of the city of Pasadena.

Allen, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 P. 972, 18 Cal. App. 593, 1912 Cal. App. LEXIS 402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-anderson-calctapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack