In Re Riley

BEASLY, J.,

pro

tem.

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,

33 Cal. App. 45, [164 Pac. 339], in which it is held that such an ordinance is discriminatory and void as an attempt to create and enforce a discrimination not based upon differences in the nature of the business being transacted, or differences in the manner of conducting the same business, or any other difference other than the mere fact of difference in destination of the goods collected and delivered by wagons collecting for laundries located outside of the city and the destination of goods collected for delivery to laundries within the city.

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,