Thomas

United States v. Thomas

Good Law
4 F.2d 857·1925 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 998
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 19, 1925No. 107California445 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bledsoe, J.

(after stating the facts as above). Stated briefly, the situation is that the owner of property, closed for a year under authority of law as for the continued and persistent maintenance of a *859 •common nuisance therein, desires now to he relieved of the judgment heretofore regularly entered against him and against his property. If this were a sheer matter of grace, the court might feel disposed, as it would feel disposed in almost any ease, to do that which would relieve from loss or detriment. However, such is not the ease. The judgment rendered herein was pronounced in due course and was rendered in pursuance of law. As well might a defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment be authorized to secure his release, previous to the time appointed for his enlargement, upon the promise, vehemently indulged in, that he would forever after abide by the law.

Punishment is not imposed as a means of inflicting pain, deprivation, detriment, or injury to or upon an individual. It is imposed in order that in some substantial respect the majesty and dignity of the law may the better be upheld. It is imposed for its deterrent effect. It is imposed in order that others, who might possibly…

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.