7 P.2d 1110 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1932
The petitioner sought in the court below a peremptory writ of mandate compelling the clerk of the city to certify the sufficiency of certain names signed on papers protesting against an ordinance adopted by the city council of Long Beach. The superior court denied the writ and petitioner prosecutes this appeal.
[1] The sole question necessary to a disposal of the case involves the sufficiency of seventeen papers containing 3,113 signatures. It was stipulated by the parties that the "oaths to each of said papers was made by a person who was not a signer of the paper to which his said oath was appended. Each of the persons making oath to said seventeen (17) papers, as aforesaid, had signed another paper of said document but he was not one of the signers of the separate paper to which he made oath, as aforesaid". We should entertain grave doubt concerning the problem were it not for the fact that a provision of the Los Angeles charter practically verbatim with the present provision of the Long Beach charter with respect to the same question was before the court in Rushton v. Lelander,
Judgment affirmed.
Works, P.J., and Fricke, J., pro tem., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on March 5, 1932, and the following opinion then rendered thereon:
THE COURT.
In denying a rehearing in this case it is proper to note the fact that the point and argument supporting it to the effect that the charter provision involved is unconstitutional is made for the first time in the petition for rehearing. [3] It has been repeatedly stated that a rehearing will not be granted for the purpose of considering suggestions made under such circumstances. (In re Novotny's Estate,
Rehearing denied.
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on April 4, 1932.
Preston, J., dissented.