In Re Riley

Good Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 28·39 Cal. App. 58·177 P. 854
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 4, 1918Crim. No 823.California481 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Beasly, J.

The petitioner, Riley, was arrested upon a complaint made in the recorder’s court of the town of Redwood, San Mateo County, in which he was charged with a misdemeanor, to wit, the violation of ordinance No. 195 of said town. He seeks his discharge on habeas corpus.

Riley conducted a cleaning and dyeing business situated outside of the town of Redwood, for which establishment he collected and delivered dyeing and cleaning work within the corporate limits of said town. Petitioner claims that the ordinance under which he is being prosecuted is illegal and void because it discriminates unreasonably between cleaning and dyeing businesses conducted without the city limits and soliciting business therein and the same kind of an establishment with a fixed place of business within the limits of the town, and that the discrimination is solely based upon the location of the business.

The- respondent does not seem to dispute the statement that the ordinance does so discriminate between businesses so conducted within and without the town. If this be true, the petitioner is entitled to his discharge under the authority of the case In re Hines, 33 Cal. App. 45 , [ 164 Pac. 339 ], in which it…

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.