People v. City of San Bernardino (1920) · DecisionDepot

People v. City of San Bernardino

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Apr 28, 1920 No. Civ. No. 2802.Published

Before: James

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the state Poison Act's provisions regarding the disposition of fines control over conflicting city charter provisions because the prosecution of state offenses is not a municipal affair. Additionally, the court affirmed the sufficiency of the Act's title and applied the three-year statute of limitations for liabilities created by statute.

Issues

Whether the disposition of fines for state Poison Act violations is a municipal affair subject to city charter control.
Whether the title of the Poison Act satisfies constitutional requirements.
Which statute of limitations applies to an action to recover fines collected under the Poison Act.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial and punishment of offenses defined by the laws of the state is not a municipal affair.”

“we are of the opinion that the three-year statute is the one to be considered (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 338), and that the action is one upon a liability created by statute”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. H. T. Dewhirst, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

JAMES, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover seventy-five per cent of certain fines imposed upon defendants in the police court of the city of San Bernardino after conviction of violations of the state Poison Act. Judgment was entered agreeable to the prayer of the complaint and defendant appealed therefrom. The appeal is presented on the judgment-roll.

[1]

The main contention of appellant is that by reason of provisions of the freeholders’ charter, under which defendant city is organized, all fines collected in the police court are required to be paid into the city treasury for the benefit of the city; that the provisions of the state Poison Act in conflict therewith are null and void. This argument is based upon the assumption that, in the prosecutions mentioned, the collection of fines and the disposition thereof is a municipal affair, and that the charter provisions affecting the matter are, therefore, of conclusive effect. (Sees. 6 and 8, art. XI, Const.) The Poison Act is a general statute, enacted by the legislature (see Act 2724, DBering’s Gen. Laws), and the offenses defined therein may be designated as state offenses—in other words, offenses which, in their commission, are not limited to the confines of

[234]

any municipality. The entire subject matter of the act relates in no manner to “municipal affairs.” Upon the general subject of what is included within that term, see

Fragley

Phelan,

126 Cal. 383, [58 Pac. 923]. In

Roberts

Police Court,

148 Cal. 131, [82 Pac. 838], it was said, in the concurring opinion: “The jurisdiction of offenses defined by state law must be regulated by general state law, and such regulations cannot be altered or qualified by any provision of a freeholders’ charter. The trial and punishment of offenses defined by the laws of the state is not a municipal affair. Jurisdiction of such offenses may be conferred upon police courts by act of the legislature, but cannot be conferred by special freeholders’ charter, and certainly not in a manner which will impair the operation of general laws.” In

People v. City of San Bernardino

AI Brief

Synopsis

JAMES, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief