Matter of Application of Throop

Caution
169 Cal. 93·1915 Cal. LEXIS 465·145 P. 1029
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 3, 1915Crim. No. 1851.California2,006 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sullivan, J.

The petitioner was taken into custody by virtue of process issued out of the recorder’s court of the city of South Pasadena for alleged violation of ordinance oE that city number 264, adopted in 1908, and certain ordinances amendatory thereof. He seeks discharge on the ground, among others, that the ordinances which he is charged with violating are unreasonable and void. The ordinance divides the city into three districts, numbered 1, 2, and 3. The entire area of South Pasadena comprises approximately two thousand two hundred acres of land. District No. 1 contains 25.25 acres; district No. 2 contains 11.65 acres, and in district No. 3 there are 2163 acres. District No. 1 embraces the retail business section; district No. 2, known as the “Industrial District,” is situate in a populous part of the city. As stated in the petition for the writ, it is “densely surrounded by residences and other buildings on all sides for a distance of many blocks in every direction, and is itself very largely built up.” District No. 3 is known as the “Residence District,” and, as stipulated in this proceeding by the respective parties, “the greater part of the district is sparsely settled, one area…

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.