In Re Application of Silva

WILBUR, C. J.

The petitioner was convicted in the superior court of the state, in and for the county of Sacramento, of the crime of offering narcotics for sale, the punishment for which may exceed six months’ imprisonment (Stats. 1921, p. 978).

It is conceded that the superior court would have jurisdiction over such a misdemeanor unless that jurisdiction has been removed by the provisions of the city charter of the city of Sacramento

(Green

v.

Superior Court,

78 Cal. 556 [21 Pac. 307, 541] ;

People

v.

Wah Wong,

61 Cal. App. 497 [215 Pac. 409]). It is contended, however, that the charter of Sacramento, section 143 of article XVII (Stats. 1921, p. 1963), confers such jurisdiction upon the police court of Sacramento and that by conferring such jurisdiction on the police court the superior court no longer has jurisdiction. That section reads as follows, with reference to the jurisdiction over misdemeanors:

“Jurisdiction.

“Sec. 143. Said Police Court shall have jurisdiction:

“ (1) Of all misdemeanors enumerated by the general laws or by ordinances of the city and of all other crimes cognizable by Justices’ Courts and Courts of Justices of the Peace and Police Courts under the Constitution and laws of the State of California. ...”

It is contended that as the offense of which the petitioner was convicted was a misdemeanor “enumerated by the general laws” of the state, jurisdiction thereof was by the charter conferred upon the police court. The question involved is whether or not the phrase “cognizable by Justices’ Courts and Courts of Justices of the Peace and Police Courts under the Constitution and laws of the State of California” modifies the phrase “Of all misdemeanors enumerated by the general laws.”

The question is fairly debatable, but we think has been set at rest by the fact that the district court of appeal for the

[763]