In Re Hart

Good Law
1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 568·36 Cal. App. 627·172 P. 610
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 29, 1918Crim. No. 591.California1,023 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Works, J.

The petitioner operates a mercantile business at an establishment within the city of Santa Monica and sells his commodities in the contiguous city of Venice, sales and deliveries being made by him after the manner which is employed by dealers in articles of the same character, which dealers have their places of business located within the limits of Venice. An ordinance of the last-named city provides for the licensing of certain businesses and contains a section to the following effect: “For every person . . . selling or contracting to sell articles” of various kinds, including the' commodities dealt in by the petitioner, “to persons not regularly engaged in carrying on such lines of business, whether by sample or otherwise, . . . not otherwise provided for herein, $60.00 per annum; provided that this shall not apply to persons having regularly licensed places of business, in the city of Venice, taking orders for or sell ing, goods handled hy them in their respective business.” The petitioner was arrested and is imprisoned for making sales within Venice, without having taken out the license required by the section, it being conceded that his case is “not otherwise provided for” in…

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.