Matter of Williams

111 P. 1035, 158 Cal. 550, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 416
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 12, 1910
DocketCrim. No. 1644.
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 111 P. 1035 (Matter of Williams) 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
Matter of Williams, 111 P. 1035, 158 Cal. 550, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 416 (Cal. 1910).

Opinion

BEATTY, C. J.

This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which has been denied by the court.

The prisoner was arrested upon a complaint accusing him of violating a penal ordinance of the city of Los Angeles. The ordinance is quite comprehensive in its enumeration of the acts which it declares to be misdemeanors, and the prisoner was charged in the information with two distinct offenses, as defined by the ordinance: 1. With “loitering” on a public street in front of the Fulton Engine Works for the purpose of inducing and influencing persons to refrain from doing and performing services and labor at said works; 2. With “picketing” in front of said works for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, and coercing such persons. It is argued in support of the petition that the ordinance is invalid. As to the provision concerning “picketing” for the purpose of intimidation, threatening, etc., I have no doubt that it is a valid exercise of the powers of the local legislature. As to the provisions relating to “loitering” I have very serious doubts. They are so vaguely comprehensive that a person stopping on the street anywhere in the vicinity of a place of business for *551 the purpose of dissuading an employee from continuing in his ■employment might he convicted of a misdemeanor. I therefore concur in the order denying the writ only upon the ground that the charge of picketing for the purpose of intimidation, etc., gives the police court jurisdiction to try the charge.

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

Related

In Re Cregler
363 P.2d 305 (California Supreme Court, 1961)
In Re Bell
122 P.2d 22 (California Supreme Court, 1942)
In Re Bell
100 P.2d 339 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
Phillips v. Municipal Court
75 P.2d 548 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
People v. Armentrout
1 P.2d 556 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1931)
Thomas v. City of Indianapolis
145 N.E. 550 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1924)
Ex Parte Stout
198 S.W. 967 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 P. 1035, 158 Cal. 550, 1910 Cal. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-williams-cal-1910.