In Re Rosenthal

California Court of Appeal

In Re Rosenthal

27 P.2d 794, 135 Cal. App. 724, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 577

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 14, 1933

DocketDocket No. 1771.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 P.2d 794 (In Re Rosenthal) 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 Rosenthal, 27 P.2d 794, 135 Cal. App. 724, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 577 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

Habeas corpus. Petitioner is accused of a violation of the State Recovery Act of the State of California, approved August 4, 1933 (chap. 1037, Laws of 1933), and the provisions of the acts amendatory and supplemental thereto, and the provisions of the temporary code of fair competition for the cleaning and dyeing' industry of the state of California.

It is.claimed that the facts recited in the complaint do not constitute a violation of the provisions above referred to, nor do they constitute a violation of the provisions of the temporary code of fair competition for the cleaning and dyeing industry. The alleged criminal violation of the temporary code consists of charging seventy-five cents for cleaning a man’s three-piece suit when the price for that work had been fixed at one dollar by a vote of the trade associations of Alameda County.

The statute in question contemplates that the commissioner of corporations shall approve all the provisions of the code, which approval is to be concurred in by the director of the department of industrial relations. There was no schedule of prices included in the code approved by the commissioner or director. There was, therefore, no violation of any of the provisions involved. Since the arrest of petitioner a code of fair competition which fixes the schedule has been approved under the act of Congress. From what we have said it follows that petitioner should be and he is discharged from custody and his bail exonerated.

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

THE COURT.

Habeas corpus. Petitioner is accused of a violation of the State Recovery Act of the State of California, approved August 4, 1933 (chap. 1037, Laws of 1933), and the provisions of the acts amendatory and supplemental thereto, and the provisions of the temporary code of fair competition for the cleaning and dyeing' industry of the state of California.

It is.claimed that the facts recited in the complaint do not constitute a violation of the provisions above referred to, nor do they constitute a violation of the provisions of the temporary code of fair competition for the cleaning and dyeing industry. The alleged criminal violation of the temporary code consists of charging seventy-five cents for cleaning a man’s three-piece suit when the price for that work had been fixed at one dollar by a vote of the trade associations of Alameda County.

The statute in question contemplates that the commissioner of corporations shall approve all the provisions of the code, which approval is to be concurred in by the director of the department of industrial relations. There was no schedule of prices included in the code approved by the commissioner or director. There was, therefore, no violation of any of the provisions involved. Since the arrest of petitioner a code of fair competition which fixes the schedule has been approved under the act of Congress. From what we have said it follows that petitioner should be and he is discharged from custody and his bail exonerated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 P.2d 794, 135 Cal. App. 724, 1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-rosenthal-calctapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack