In Re Hankammer

California Supreme Court

In Re Hankammer

204 P. 1084, 188 Cal. 797, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 485

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 23, 1922

DocketCrim. No. 2392.

StatusPublished

This text of 204 P. 1084 (In Re Hankammer) 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 Hankammer, 204 P. 1084, 188 Cal. 797, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 485 (Cal. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, owner of a drug-store, was arrested, and held to answer, together with one of his employees, on a charge of violating the provisions of section 3 of an act of the legislature, regulating the working hours of employees engaged in selling, at retail, drugs and medicines, compounding physicians’ prescriptions, and providing a penalty for its violation and the acts amendatory thereof. (Stats. 1905, p. 28, as amended by Stats. 1907, p. 273; Stats. 1921, p. 1323.) The material issues made by the petition, and the return, are identical with those presented and considered by the court in In the Matter of the Application *798 of Twing, ante, p. 261 [204 Pac. 1082]. Section 2 of the act, for the alleged violation of which Twing was arrested, and section 3, under which this petitioner was charged, relate to the same subject and must be construed together. So considered, what we have said in the former case applies in this. On the authority of that decision it follows that the complaint in this case, as in that, states no offense.

The petitioner must be discharged, and it is so ordered.

Waste, J., Shaw, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lawlor, J., Shurtleff, J., Richards, J., pro tem., and Sloane, J., concurred.

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

THE COURT.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, owner of a drug-store, was arrested, and held to answer, together with one of his employees, on a charge of violating the provisions of section 3 of an act of the legislature, regulating the working hours of employees engaged in selling, at retail, drugs and medicines, compounding physicians’ prescriptions, and providing a penalty for its violation and the acts amendatory thereof. (Stats. 1905, p. 28, as amended by Stats. 1907, p. 273; Stats. 1921, p. 1323.) The material issues made by the petition, and the return, are identical with those presented and considered by the court in In the Matter of the Application *798 of Twing, ante, p. 261 [204 Pac. 1082]. Section 2 of the act, for the alleged violation of which Twing was arrested, and section 3, under which this petitioner was charged, relate to the same subject and must be construed together. So considered, what we have said in the former case applies in this. On the authority of that decision it follows that the complaint in this case, as in that, states no offense.

The petitioner must be discharged, and it is so ordered.

Waste, J., Shaw, C. J., Wilbur, J., Lawlor, J., Shurtleff, J., Richards, J., pro tem., and Sloane, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 P. 1084, 188 Cal. 797, 1922 Cal. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-hankammer-cal-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack