In Re Adams

CONREY, P. J.

In the police court of the city of Los Angeles ¿ complaint was filed whereby petitioner was charged with a violation of the act commonly known as the “Wright Act,” being chapter 80 of the Laws of 1921 (Stats. 1921, p. 79), in that he did willfully and unlawfully have in his possession in the city of Los Angeles certain alcoholic and intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, containing more than o'ne-half of one per cent by volume of alcohol, contrary to the provisions of the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305). He pleaded guilty, and the judgment provided that he be imprisoned in the city jail of the city of Los Angeles for a term of 180 days. Being held in custody under that judgment, he applied for and obtained a writ of

habeas corpus,

returnable before this court. Return having been made showing the facts above stated, the matter is now submitted for decision.

Petitioner claims that the commitment is void because the offense charged against petitioner was a first offense, and under section 29 of the Volstead law the only punishment which can be inflicted for the illegal possession of liquor as a first offense is a fine of not more than $500. Petitioner further contends that the Wright Act violates section 24, article IV, of the constitution of California, which provides that “Every act shall embrace but one subject, which subject shall be expressed in its title. ...”

The Wright Act is entitled: “An act to enforce the provisions of article eighteen of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States; prohibiting all acts or omissions prohibited by the Volstead Act; imposing duties on courts, prosecuting attorneys, sheriffs and other officers,

[241]

and extending their jurisdiction; and providing for the disposition of fines and forfeitures.” We think that the first clause of this title is alone sufficient to cover all of the contents of the statute. Moreover, section 5 of the act defines the phrase “Volstead Act” by referring it definitely to title two of the act of Congress enacted October 28, 1919. In the

Matter of Frank Burke,

190 Cal. 326 [212 Pac. 193], the supreme court has held that where there is no constitutional provision which forbids it, it is proper to declare that any law of the United States, or of another state, shall be the law of this state, and that there is no constitutional provision in this state which forbids such action. In that case the Wright Act was sustained as against the contention that the act is void because it purports to enact into the law of this state all of the penal provisions of the Volstead Act.