Ex Parte Garrison

THE COURT.

Petitioner seeks a writ of

habeas corpus

upon the ground that he is detained under a judgment of a justice’s court of Visalia township, county of Tulare, state of California, adjudging him guilty upon three counts of a complaint charging him with a violation of the Wright Act (Stats. 1921, p. 79). The first count charged him with the possession of intoxicating liquor, the second with transporting the same, and third, with having in his possession a still and other implements in use for the manufacture of said intoxicating liquor. He alleges that a fine of five hundred dollars was imposed upon each count and that in default of payment he was committed to the county jail to be imprisoned therein at the rate of one dollar per day for each dollar of the fines so imposed. The fines were imposed October 17, 1923, and petitioner has not, therefore, served full time for the payment of any one of the several fines imposed upon him. The sole question presented by the petitioner as the ground for his release is that the Wright Act in adopting the provisions of the Volstead Act (U. S. Comp. Stats., Ann. Supp. 1923, sec. 1013814 et seq.; Fed. Stats. Ann., 1922 Supp., p. 538 et seq.), made no provision for imprisonment for nonpayment of fine, for the reason that the Volstead Act made no such provision. The question of the right of a justice’s court to provide for imprisonment for nonpayment of a fine imposed under the Wright Act, where no term of imprisonment was fixed by the Volstead Act, was recently before us in

Ex parte Kennerly,

190 Cal. 774 [214 Pac. 857]. We there determined that imprisonment for a fine was not a distinct punishment, but merely a method of enforcing the payment of a fine

(People

v.

Markham,

7 Cal. 208;

Ex parte Kelley,

28 Cal. 414;

Ex parte Crittenden,

62 Cal 534;

Ex parte Miller,

82 Cal. 454 [22 Pac. 1113];

Ex parte Karlson,

160 Cal. 378 [Ann. Cas. 1912D, 1334, 117 Pac. 447]). That principle