*1 $1500 on account of engineering An fees. antecedent debtedness constitutes sufficient to a valuable consideration support equitable (Smitton an assignment. McCullough, supra.) “ ‘That assign- the order parties was intended an ’’ ’ ment is in accord with the evidence. construction given order was Chapman question of addressed, instance, fact in the first to the trial judge. On all of judge the evidence before him the trial parties concluded that it was the intention of the to effect assignment crop. an After review- growing immediate this conclusion this evidence we cannot conclude that supported by unreasonable it was not the evidence. Lyndon, supra, As said court, Curtner v. “The trial light evidence, of all construed this order as the effect assignment, an and we will not set aside that construc- ’’ tion. is affirmed.
Barnard, J.,P. concurred. No. 11645. Second Division Two. PHILLIPS, Respondent, MICHAEL v. MUNICIPAL al., OF THE OF COURT CITY LOS ANGELES et Appellants.
Ray City Chesebro, Attorney, L. Kendall, Newton J. Assis- City Attorney, tant George John Bland and William Deputies Adams, City Attorney, for Appellants. Wapner Respondent. for Joe GRAIL, appeal P. J. by This is an the defendants from superior an order prohibiting court them from enforc Code, the Penal ing against section 647a of petitioner ‘1Every annoys person reads as follows: who or molests which any school child who loiters about or attend, vagrant, is place at or school children a which exceeding punishable by fine of not is a five hundred county jail by imprisonment in ex dollars or imprisonment.” such fine and months, both ceeding six or (1) The second petitioner The makes two contentions: vague, indefinite, ambiguous, un said section so clause of both the unintelligible to contravene state and as certain constitutions, (2) federal therefore is invalid. act, adding said the Penal sufficient. first contention of the is untenable. The linger by idly way,
verb “loiter” means “to to idle”. State, in App. As was said the case of Robinson Ala. “ well-recognized ‘Loitering’ So. is a term constituting in meaning ordinary use, collective acts persons which all are familiar with.” As was said parte Strittmatter, Rep. ease Ex Tex. W. Cr. think Rep. Ann. Cas. “We ‘loiter, loaf, wholly the terms and idle’ are at variance with frequent presence public places or occasional even by being be for the time un employed. is difficult matters of this sort lan guage employed which the could have to have precise laid rule so down a definite and as not be the subject-matter of criticism. constructive of this sort, along lines, difficulty will be found so fram even, the definition a strained *3 place perhaps, improper a literal to and persons.” grievous on burdens compel urged that per It is it unreasonable to all forego pleasure loitering sons the of about to public place merely at or which school children attend disposition because of evil desire to do so. entirely attempt does will that the law not to be observed prohibit loitering, prohibitions but it confines that its to loitering public school place about at or near which However, school children attend. the mere fact that some may people to innocent desire public loiter near a school deprive power does the of prohibit not its to loiter safety place if require the of school children legislative (Booth Illinois, such action. v. 184 S. 425 U. [22 Sup. 425, 623]; L. Ed. Purity Ct. 46 Extract etc. Co. v. Sup. 44, 226 192 Lynch, U. Ct. 57 184]; S. L. Ed. Otis [33 Parker, Sup. v. 198 S. 606 & Gassman U. Ct. 47 168, [23 323].) L. Ed. general reasonably
The courts will construe statutes unjust manner that will lead not in a to or absurd re Trinity (Church Holy the v. States, sults. 143 United of Sup. 36 511, 226]; Ct. U. S. 457 Ed. United States [12 456 v. Wall.) ; State (7 482 L. Ed. Kirby, 278] 74 U. S. [19
v. 739].) 1021, 60 L. R. A. Jackson, N. H. 552 Atl. 71 [53 under enacted may prohibited statutes be acts Innocent public peace, necessary protect the power to police when to the guarantees Constitution welfare. If the safety and guarantee certainly does loiter, right to it promiscu places where loitering in his right him to do to safety our school of endanger peace may loitering ous may of the immoral desires of some children on account 296 White, (Pacific right. States etc. v. such Co. exercise ; R. Sup. 138, 80 L. 101 A. L. 853] 176 Ed. U. Ct. [56 550, 35 E. Indianapolis, 195 N. Ind. Thomas v. [145 Atlanta, S. E. 121 Ga. 1194]; L. R. Fitts v. [49 803].) Rep. 167, 67 L. A. R. of is insufficient that the title the act The contention “An the act as follows: title to reads merit. The is without Penal to be numbered to the to add a Act pro vagrancy.” The constitutional relating 647a, to expressed in its subject to be of the act requiring the vision required construed, all that liberally must be requirement meet the constitutional therein to be contained subject to which intelligent to the reasonably reference ais (Estate Wellings, 192 be is to addressed. Maginnis, 162 Cal. 628]; Matter Pac. [221 McGuire, 201 Cal. Frank 723]; v. [257 Pac. 200 [121 160]; Riley, 209 Cal. v. ; Heron Pac. 515] 382].) Fryer, People reversed. Order
Wood, J., concurred. my opinion Dissenting. sec- I dissent.
McCOMB, J., attempts make actions Penal Code 647a tion attempt offenses, an herently innocuous, Anduha, (1931) 48 Hawaii v. (Territory be successful. 171.) holding I As view the instant case the Fed. *4 opinion contrary indicated majority to the rule of law Beatty in of In the Matter Chief Justice the case Mr. Williams, conflict Appeal the District Court of announced with the law as App. (2d) Harder, recent case of In re in the respondent A petition by the cause heard have Supreme Court, after the District Court Supreme Appeal, by the March denied Court on hearing. Houser, J., for a 1938. voted No. 10642. First Division One. Matter the Estate ALLMARAS, of JOHN De ALLMARAS, ceased. ROBERT Appellant, v. JOHN al., Respondents. F. ALLMARAS et Anthony, H. M. Harold Harwood, Norman Wilkie P. Anthony, Rogers Appellant. Harwood