Ex parte Christensen

The petitioner was arrested upon a charge of misdemeanor, consisting in the carrying on of the business of a retail liquor dealer in the city of San Francisco, without a license.

*210 He contends that the ordinance prescribing the license is void, for various reasons: —

1. The original order numbered 1589 was passed in 1880. In 1866 subdivision 39 of section 10 of this order (which relates to liquor licenses) was amended by order 1845, and it is contended that this amendatory order was not properly passed and published in accordance,, with the provisions of the county government act.

But we do not think that the provisions of the county government act apply to the passage and publication of ordinances of the city and county of San Francisco.

It is argued, however, that even under the provisions of the consolidation act the order was not properly passed. The main point seems to be that the amendatory order only, and not the original order, was published. But there is no merit in this position. Section 68 of the consolidation act provides that "every ordinance or resolution, etc., shall, after its introduction in the board, be published,” etc. This only requires the ordinance or…