Ex Parte Kordoulis

THE COURT.

This is an application of the petitioner for release on

habeas corpus.

The proceedings show that the petitioner was arrested and charged with the violation of the provisions of section 194 of ordinance 2741 (new series), of the ordinances of the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, which reads in part as follows:

“No person, firm or corporation shall construct or cause to be constructed, maintain or cause to be maintained, occupy or cause to be occupied, any structure or building hereafter used, or intended to be used as a planing-mill, sawmill, sash or door factory, furniture or cabinet factory, or for any other wood-working purpose, if planers, stickers or jointers are used,

[5]

and run by power, without first obtaining a permit so to do from the board of supervisors.”

The sole question before the court is the legality of the foregoing section of the ordinance.

Practically the same question was before this court in

Ex parte Dondero,

19 Cal. App. 66, [124 Pac. 884], wherein a similar section of the same general ordinance was held by this court to be invalid because of discrimination in its operation between individuals similarly situated, in that it permitted those already in possession or ownership of buildings or premises being used for stables, to continue to put these structures to such use without a permit, while requiring all persons thereafter wishing to construct any building or premises to be used as a stable to first obtain a permit from the board of supervisors so to do. The reasoning and conclusion of this court in the Dondero ease apply to the case at bar, and impel us to hold the section of the ordinance in question here to be invalid.

Our attention has been called to the case of

In re Stoltenberg,

165 Cal. 789, [134 Pac. 971], which it is claimed by the respondent announced a different rule than that declared in