Ex parte Hodges

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 1113·87 Cal. 162·25 P. 277
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 17, 1890No. 20739California827 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Works, J.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The board of supervisors of Contra Costa County enacted the following ordinance:—

The petitioner was convicted of a violation of this ordinance, sentenced to pay a fine, and in default of payment, was committed to the county, jail. He now prosecutes this proceeding, and asks that he be discharged.

*164 The question as to the constitutionality of the ordinance is gravely and. learnedly discussed by counsel on both sides, and Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, Potter’s Dvvarris on Construction of Statutes, Sedgwick on Constitutional Law, and other constitutional authorities, and decided cases innumerable, are cited in aid of and against its validity. It is certainly a most effective means of abating a nuisance, viz., the squirrels, and bringing about a very desirable end. We regret exceedingly that we cannot see our way clear to uphold and enforce such an important and original piece of legislation. Indeed, it would give us great pleasure to see the power here assumed applied to snakes, tarantulas, ants, flies, fleas, and other reptiles, insects, and pests, which tend to make man’s life a burden, and to have it exercised 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.