Ex parte White — 67 Cal. 102

Majority

p. 102

[No. 20082.

Department Two.

June 2, 1885.]

EX PARTE E. WHITE ON HABEAS CORPUS.

Headnote

CoNsimmosAi, Law—Laundry Ordinance. — Order No. 1559 of the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, prescribing the manner in which buildings used as laundries shall be constructed, is not unconstitutional, and has not been repealed.

Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was arrested and held in custody under order Ho. 1559 of the board, of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco. The remaining facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

A. C. Searle, for Petitioner.

Alfred Clarke, for Respondent. cited Stats. 1861, p. 544; Stats. 1863, p. 540; Stats. 1871-72, p. 736; Const. Cal. art. xi. § 11; Ex parte Shrader, 33 Cal. 279 ; Ex parte Keating, 38 Cal. 702 ; Ex parte Delaney, 43 Cal. 478 ; Ex parte Ah Toy, 57 Cal. 92 ; Ex parte Casinello, 62 Cal. 538 ; Ex parte Ah Sing, 59 Cal. 404 ; Ex parte Chin Yan, 60 Cal. 78 ; Los Angeles v. S. P. R. R. Co. 61 Cal. 59 ; Ex parte Stuart, 61 Cal. 374 ; Ex parte Benninger, 64 Cal. 291 ; Ex parte Moynier, 65 Cal. 33 ; Ex parte Wolters, 65 Cal. 269 ; Ex parte Mount, 66 Cal. 448 ; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 .

The petitioner bases his right to a discharge on two grounds, (1) the unconstitutionality of order 1559; and (2) that it was repealed by orders 1719 and 1767.

Order Ho. 1559 contains two sections:—

“Section 1. All buildings erected and used as laundries within the corporate limits of this city and county, on and after March 1, 1880, shall be constructed but one story in height, with brick or stone walls, not less than twelve inches in thickness, covered with a metal roof, and provided with metal or metal covered doors and window shutters.

“ Section 2. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this order shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail not

p. 103

more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

We do not doubt the constitutional power of the board of supervisors to pass such an order, or of the municipal authorities to enforce its observance. (Const. art. xi. § 11; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27 ; Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 703 .) Neither order 1719 nor 1767 is inconsistent with or repugnant to order 1559, nor is the object of either of the former the same as that of the latter. The object of the latter is to prohibit the use of buildings for laundry purposes which are not constructed bf the materials and in the manner therein prescribed. Neither of the other orders contains any provision on that subject. 'Under such circumstances a repeal cannot be implied.

Writ dismissed and petitioner remanded.

Thornton, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.

Cases cited

Ex parte Shrader 33 Cal. 279 Cal. p. 102
Ex parte Smith & Keating 38 Cal. 702 Cal. p. 102
Ex Parte Delaney 43 Cal. 478 Cal. p. 102
Ex parte Ah Toy 57 Cal. 92 Cal. p. 102
Ex parte Casinello 62 Cal. 538 Cal. 1881-05-25 p. 102
Ex parte Ho Quan 59 Cal. 404 Cal. p. 102
Ex parte Chin Yan 60 Cal. 78 Cal. 1882-02-04 p. 102
City of Los Angeles v. Southern Pacific Railroad 61 Cal. 59 Cal. 1882-07-05 p. 102
In re Stuart 61 Cal. 374 Cal. 1882-09-04 p. 102
Ex parte Benninger 64 Cal. 291 Cal. 1883-11-05 p. 102
Ex parte Moynier 65 Cal. 33 Cal. 1884-02-08 p. 102
Ex parte Wolters 65 Cal. 269 Cal. 1884-05-26 p. 102
Ex parte Mount 66 Cal. 448 Cal. 1885-02-23 p. 102
Barbier v. Connolly 113 U. S. 27 SCOTUS 1885-01-05 p. 102, p. 103
Soon Hing v. Crowley 113 U. S. 703 SCOTUS 1885-03-16 p. 103