Strouse v. Police Court

California Supreme Court

Strouse v. Police Court

24 P. 747, 85 Cal. 49, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 865

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 25, 1890

DocketNo. 13826

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 24 P. 747 (Strouse v. Police Court) 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

Strouse v. Police Court, 24 P. 747, 85 Cal. 49, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 865 (Cal. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Paterson, J.

A complaint was filed in the police court of the city and county of San Francisco, on April 24, 1890, charging the petitioner with a misdemeanor in having transacted and carried on the business of selling meat without having first taken out a license, as required by an ordinance of the board of supervisors. [50]*50The petitioner was arrested under a warrant issued on said complaint, and in due time entered a plea of not guilty, and another plea challenging the jurisdiction of the court. It is alleged that, notwithstanding his plea to the jurisdiction, the police court threatens to proceed with the trial of the charge against petitioner, and he prays for a writ of prohibition to restrain the police court from proceeding with the trial of the action.

Section 1103 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the writ of prohibition may be issued “in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” This is not such a case. If the petitioner should be convicted in the police court, he will have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law by an appeal to the superior court. (Levy v. Wilson, 69 Cal. 105.)

Application for writ denied.

Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., Fox, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

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

Paterson, J.

A complaint was filed in the police court of the city and county of San Francisco, on April 24, 1890, charging the petitioner with a misdemeanor in having transacted and carried on the business of selling meat without having first taken out a license, as required by an ordinance of the board of supervisors. [50]*50The petitioner was arrested under a warrant issued on said complaint, and in due time entered a plea of not guilty, and another plea challenging the jurisdiction of the court. It is alleged that, notwithstanding his plea to the jurisdiction, the police court threatens to proceed with the trial of the charge against petitioner, and he prays for a writ of prohibition to restrain the police court from proceeding with the trial of the action.

Section 1103 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the writ of prohibition may be issued “in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” This is not such a case. If the petitioner should be convicted in the police court, he will have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law by an appeal to the superior court. (Levy v. Wilson, 69 Cal. 105.)

Application for writ denied.

Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., Fox, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 P. 747, 85 Cal. 49, 1890 Cal. LEXIS 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strouse-v-police-court-cal-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack