Ex parte Williams

Good Law
121 Cal. 328·1898 Cal. LEXIS 904·53 P. 706
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 30, 1898Crim. No. 442California838 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

Petitioner was convicted in the justice’s court of Mariposa county of a misdemeanor arising under section 537 of the Penal Code; he was fined, with the alternative of imprisonment, and failing to pay the fine went to jail. He now seeks Ms release on Imbeas corpus, assigning (1) that the complaint charged no offense under the statute, and (2) that the ■statute is unconstitutional.

1. As to the last point, the validity of the section was sustained in Ex parte Ruffin, 119 Cal. 487 , and we do not regard the further objections now urged by petitioner as seriously challenging the constitutionality of the provision.

2. The proposition that the complaint is insufficient is based, we think, upon an erroneous construction of the pleading. The section of the code under which the conviction was had, which is intended to prevent frauds and impositions upon innkeepers and the like, provides:

As suggested by petitioner, the act contemplates three classes of offenders who shall be amenable to its provisions: First, those who obtain food or accommodation at such a resort without paying therefor, with intent to defraud; second, those who obtain credit thereat by the employment of any false…

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.