Goytino v. McAleer

California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 1906 No. Civ. No. 326.Published

Before: Allen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a municipal ordinance requiring a permit from the board of police commissioners to operate a poolroom is a valid exercise of police power, and that the writ of mandamus must be denied because a prior action involving the same parties and subject matter is pending in the superior court.

Issues

Whether a municipal ordinance requiring a permit for the operation of a poolroom is a valid exercise of police power.
Whether the board of police commissioners may exercise discretion in granting or denying permits based on public health, safety, and morals.
Whether a pending action in the superior court between the same parties for the same cause warrants the denial of a writ of mandamus.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The safety of the people is the supreme law and justifies legislation pertaining to the public welfare, health and morals.”

“Whatever of danger or menace to such public interests is threatened by the establishment and conduct of such business is a question of fact which the ordinance authorizes the board of police commissioners to determine.”

“The return and answer of respondents show, and its truth is admitted, that there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause.”

Synopsis

PETITION for writ of mandate to the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

ALLEN, J.

This is a proceeding in

mandamus

to compel the respondents, the hoard of police commissioners of the city of Los Angeles, to issue a permit authorizing the city clerk to issue to petitioner a license, upon the payment of the legal fee therefor, to carry on and conduct a poolroom and pool-tables-at a certain street number in said city.

It appears from the conceded facts set out in the petition and return that an ordinance is in force in said city making it unlawful to carry on certain kinds of business in said-city without first procuring a license so to do, and among the kinds of business so specified is that of conducting poolrooms

[657]

and operating pool-tables. It is further ordained that no license to carry on certain kinds of business, among which is that of conducting a poolroom or operating a pool-table, shall issue, except a permit therefor be first had from the board of police commissioners; and that said board can only issue such permits upon petition of the party intending to operate the same, accompanied by consent of a majority of the property owners within the block where the permit is sought. It is further provided by section 3 of said ordinance, that said board is empowered to make such rules and regulations for the granting of permits as may be proper or necessary for the maintenance of public order, the promotion of public morals and the orderly conduct of such places, or the better enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance.

Petitioner’s application for a license was denied by the board for the reason that the place mentioned in said application is located in a part of the city inhabited by a class of people which would render a poolroom, if established there, a resort for dissolute and objectionable persons, and in the judgment of the board the issuance of such permit would injuriously affect public health, peace and morals. Petitioner does not question the legality of the ordinance or ordinances in any regard, save as to the provisions of section 3 thereof, and as to which he contends that the power of regulation therein contained gives the right to prohibit certain kinds of business which he claims cannot be exercised except in relation to nuisances per

Goytino v. McAleer

AI Brief

Synopsis

ALLEN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief