Osborne

People v. Osborne

Good Law
17 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 771·1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 656·59 P.2d 1083
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 23, 1936Cr. A. 1328California2,257 words

Opinion

Opinion

Schauer, J.

Defendant was charged with and convicted of a violation of section 4 of Ordinance No. C-1389 of the city of Long Beach. Such ordinance by its terms relates exclusively to the barbering business and provides in material part as follows:

It was stipulated that “the defendant did on March 5, 1936, advertise prices of services rendered in the barber shop at 231 Bast First Street, in the City of Long Beach upon the outside of said building and plainly visible from the outside of said building or place of business”. There was no other evidence. The defendant was found guilty and from the judgment imposing a fine of $100 or fifty days in jail he prosecutes this appeal.

It thus does not appear whether the defendant was himself a barber advertising his own services, perchance by chalk-writing on the wall of the barber shop building, or a sign painter who had painted outside the price list of services inside, but this is immaterial to the considerations before us. Indeed, the ordinance by its terms would equally place the stamp of criminal guilt upon the barber or the sign painter, or even a newspaper publisher who might in some column of tonsorial topics nefariously publish the price…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.