Ex parte Prindle

The defendant was arrested for the violation of ordinance No. 120 (new series), enacted on the sixteenth day of May, 1905, by the board of supervisors of Los Angeles county. Section 1 of the ordinance provides: “It shall be unlawful in the county of Los Angeles, between the thirtieth day of June and the fifteenth day of August of each year, and between the fifteenth day of August of each year and the sixteenth day of February of the year next ensuing, for any person to hunt, pursue, take, kill or destroy, or have in his possession, any dove or doves.” Upon trial the defendant pleaded guilty, and was committed to the county jail upon default of payment of the fine imposed. This writ was issued upon his application, and the respondent, upon the return, justifies the imprisonment under such conviction.

The question presented is as to the validity of said ordinance. Section 626a of the Penal code makes it a misde *225 ¡meanor “to hunt, kill, pursue, or destroy, or have in .possession, any dove or doves, between the fifteenth day of February and the first day of July of the same year.” It will be observed that, taking the ordinance and the section of the Penal Code last referred to…