Mann v. BrisonMann v. Brison
Thе petitioner sought in the court below a peremptory writ of mandаte compelling the clerk of the city to certify the sufficiency оf 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.
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 wаs not one of the” signers of the separate paper to whiсh 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 quеstion was before the court in
Rushton
v.
Lelander,
Judgment affirmed.
Works, P. J., and Fricke, J., pro tern., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on March 5, 1932, and the follоwing opinion then .rendered thereon:
In denying a rehearing in this case it is proper to note the fact that the point and argument suppоrting it to the effect that the charter provision involved is unconstitutionаl is made for the first time in the petition for rehearing. 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.