177 P. 854 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1918
The petitioner, Riley, was arrested upon a complaint made in the recorder's court of the town of Redwood, San Mateo County, in which he was charged with a misdemeanor, to wit, the violation of ordinance No. 195 of said town. He seeks his discharge on habeas corpus.
Riley conducted a cleaning and dyeing business situated outside of the town of Redwood, for which establishment he collected and delivered dyeing and cleaning work within the corporate limits of said town. Petitioner claims that the ordinance under which he is being prosecuted is illegal and void because it discriminates unreasonably between cleaning and dyeing businesses conducted without the city limits and soliciting business therein and the same kind of an establishment with a fixed place of business within the limits of the town, and that the discrimination is solely based upon the location of the business.
The respondent does not seem to dispute the statement that the ordinance does so discriminate between businesses so conducted within and without the town. If this be true, the petitioner is entitled to his discharge under the authority of the *59
case In re Hines,
The principle applicable to this case is exactly that stated in the Hines case. The respondent undertakes to avoid the effect of that decision by appealing to Ex parte Haskell,
In the last clause of the sentence quoted, a distinction is made between the two classes of cases which is perfectly clear.
It follows that the ordinance attacked is invalid and that the petitioner should be discharged from the custody of the town marshal from whom he was taken, and it is so ordered.
Lennon, P. J., and Sturtevant, J., pro tem., concurred. *60