In Re Johnson

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 553·47 Cal. App. 465·190 P. 852
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 13, 1920Crim. No. 511.California1,598 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Prewett, J.

The petitioner was convicted under section 1 of Ordinance No. 188 of the city of Marysville, and he seeks his discharge from the imprison ment which followed such conviction. Section 1 requires that every person carrying on certain specified callings shall, before commencing the same, procure a license therefor, and section 80, so far as pertinent to this inquiry, reads as follows: “Section 80. Every person engaged in business as a lawyer, maintaining - an office in said city, shall pay a license of $2.50 per month. ’ ’ The petitioner, a lawyer by occupation, maintains an office in said city and he neglected to take out the license demanded by said section 1. No point is made as to sufficiency of the judgment in mere matters of form.

(1) It is contended that the ordinance in question is regulatory in its nature and therefore beyond the powers of the municipality. It is conceded that the business in question is not one that can be “regulated” under the police powers of cities and counties. Unless, therefore, the ordinance is a revenue measure, it cannot be upheld. [1] The title of the ordinance is cited to the court as an evidence that the municipality, in adopting the ordinance,…

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.