In Re Kinney

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 435·53 Cal. App. 792·200 P. 966
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 10, 1921Crim. No. 572.California1,111 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Burnett, J.

Petitioner was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Fort Bragg, Hendocino County, prohibiting traffic in intoxicating liquors, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $225, and in default of the payment thereof to be imprisoned until its satisfaction at the rate of one day’s imprisonment for each dollar of said fine.

Three contentions are made by petitioner: “1. That the ordinance is without the powers of the board of trustees of the city; 2. That the ordinance is invalid for the reason that it attempts to delegate to the Congress of the United States legislative powers vested only in the city and its board of trustees; 3. That the judgment so far as it purports to adjudge imprisonment in default of payment of fine is without the powers given to the recorder’s court by the ordinance.”

[1] The reason for the first contention is that the ordinance prescribes a less severe penalty than for similar acts is prescribed by what is known as the Volstead Act, 41 Stats. 305, [Fed. Stats. Ann., 1919 Supp., p. 839; U. S. Comp. Stats., 1919 Supp., vol. 2, p. 2678], passed by the Congress of the United States. This question, however, has been recently considered by this court and…

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.