This is an original proceeding in this court for a writ of mandate directing the respondent, as tax-collector of Lake County, to issue to petitioner a license to sell intoxicating liquors. An alternative writ was issued, and the respondent answered. Prior to the hearing the parties filed a stipulation whereby they agreed upon the facts, which, so far as they need here be stated, are as follows:

During the year 1912, elections under the “Local Option Law” (Stats. 1911, p. 599) were held in four of the five supervisorial districts of Lake County, and such elections resulted in two of said districts being declared “no-license territory,” while the other two were not so declared. In the remaining district (No. 4) which comprises within its boundaries the incorporated town of Lakeport, there has been no such election. Kelseyville is not within either of the no-license districts.

Any doubts that may have existed concerning the legal propriety, under this state of facts, of the refusal of a license to petitioner, have been removed by the rulings of this court in two cases decided since the issuance of the alternative writ herein. In re Ellsworth, 165 Cal. 677 , [ 133 Pac. 272 ], and Giddings v. Board of Trustees, 165 Cal. 695 , [ 133 Pac. 479 ], in each of which an opinion was filed in June of this year, answer every contention of the petitioner. These cases definitely establish the propositions that the police power of a city or of a county, and the authority thereunder to restrict or prohibit the sale of liquor, are not limited by the fact that, at a prior election held within two years under the Local Option Law, a majority of the electors of the city or of one or more supervisorial districts of the county, may have voted in favor of license; that the police power may, under appropriate constitutional and legislative sanction, be exercised by ' means of the initiative with the same effect as through the board of supervisors or other representative legislative body (see, also, In re Pfahler, 150 Cal. 71 , [11 Ann. Cas. 911, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1092], and that the right to so legislate is not impaired by the circumstance that the voting body includes some electors residing in territory that will not be affected by the enactment.

The alternative writ is discharged and the proceeding dismissed.

Angellotti, J., Shaw, J., Lorigan, J., Henshaw, J., and Melvin, J., concurred.