In re Waite

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Court of Appeal of California, Second DistrictNov 11, 1916
32 Cal. App. 801 (Cal. Ct. App. 1916)
32 Cal. App. 801162 P. 140

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • In re Hempfner

    …09[2] at 523-58 (15th Ed. 1985). See also In re Waite, 223 F. 853 (D.C.Md. 1916), reversed on other grounds,…

lock 1 Citing casekeyboard_arrow_right

Crim. No. 520.

November 11, 1916.

APPLICATION for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The facts are similar to those stated in People v. Fages, ante, p. 37.

Allison Dickson, for Petitioner.

T. W. Duckworth, District Attorney, and John L. Campbell, Deputy District Attorney, for Respondent.

The ground upon which petitioner seeks to be discharged from custody is that the ordinance of the board of supervisors of the county of San Bernardino, under which he was convicted, is void because the maximum punishment therein provided is in excess of the power of the local legislative body to prescribe. The argument to that point has been given full consideration in the opinion filed this day in the case of People v. Jean Fages, Crim. No. 504, ante, p. 37, where the decision is adverse to the appellant's contention. In deciding this application it will be sufficient to refer to that case for the views of the court on the question presented.

The writ is discharged and the petitioner remanded to the custody of the sheriff of San Bernardino County.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.