In Re Graham

The petitioner is under sentence of imprisonment for having violated certain provisions of an ordinance of the city of Los Angeles. He asks to be discharged on habeas corpus, claiming that the ordinance is void. The provisions of the ordinance here in question are the early part of section 5, subdivision (a) of section 5, and the first paragraph of section 12. The first part of section 5 reads: "Permits may be issued as provided in section 12 hereof to the owners of the vehicles herein defined allowing any such vehicles while awaiting employment to stand at certain designated places upon the streets of the city of Los Angeles; . . ." Subdivision (a) provides: "It shall be unlawful for the owner or driver of any of the vehicles herein defined to stand or to cause or to permit such vehicles to stand while awaiting employment at any place other than a stand designated by the Board of Public Utilities and Transportation and assigned to the owner of said vehicle." The first part of section 12 is as follows: "The board in its discretion shall have the power to grant or deny any and all of the permits mentioned in this ordinance. . . ." The only contention of the petitioner which…

I concur in the judgment and, with one or two exceptions, in everything that is said in the opinion of Justice Craig. I think it unnecessary to say in disposing of the proceeding, as it is said in the opinion, that in certain specified cases "enactments have uniformly been upheld regulating the conduct of individuals as to whom no natural, inviolate right was possessed even though special privileges might result to particular persons." I take this language to mean, reducing it to the terms of the present situation, that the public authorities, in conferring privileges in streets, may discriminate between persons belonging to the same class, and such a pronouncement seems to me unnecessary for the reason that petitioner can make no claim that he was subjected to such a discrimination. The petition merely alleges that petitioner is under confinement by reason of his having been found guilty of a violation of section 5a of the ordinance referred to in the foregoing opinion, which we construe, under the arguments contained in the briefs, as a reference to subdivision (a) of section 5, for there is no section 5a contained in the ordinance. There is no showing *Page 95 whatever in the…