In Re Bock

Petitioner was arrested upon a charge of violating a county ordinance passed by the supervisors of the county of Marin and known as Ordinance No. 206. He seeks his release upon habeas corpus.

The ordinance was passed on March 15, 1932, and took effect thirty days thereafter. In its entirety it reads as follows:

Petitioner was engaged in the business of selling oleomargarine and had some of the product in his possession for the purpose of sale. He failed to obtain the license referred to in the ordinance and his arrest followed.

In this proceeding petitioner contends that the ordinance is invalid, urging constitutional and other grounds in support of his contention. Most of the legal principles relied upon by petitioner are not disputed by respondent, but the latter contends that these principles have no application here. It is conceded that the ordinance must stand or fall as a regulatory measure for a county can impose a license tax for the purpose of regulation only and cannot impose such tax for the purpose of revenue. (Pol. Code, sec. 3366; County of Plumas v. Wheeler, 149 Cal. 758 [ 87 Pac. 909 ].), It is further conceded that an ordinance purporting to prohibit the…