In re Lawrence
Before: Foote
Synopsis
Liquor License—Supervisors mat Impose—Collection of—Appointment of Person to Collect. — The board of supervisors of a county has power, under sections 11 and 12 of article 11 of the constitution, to regulate the sales of vinous and spirituous liquors within the county by the imposition of a license tax, and to provide for its collection; such power includes the authority to appoint a suitable person, such as the tax collector of the county, to collect the tax.
Id.—Separate Licenses for County and City.—A person carrying on the business of a liquor dealer in a city within the county is not exempted from the payment of such a license tax duly levied by the board of supervisors by reason of the fact that he has paid a license tax of a similar kind in pursuance of an ordinance enacted by the municipal authorities of the city.
Foote, C. The petitioner was arrested on a warrant issued from a Justice’s Court of Stanislaus County on a charge of misdemeanor, under section 435, Penal Code, and is held in custody under that warrant by the sheriff of said county.
[609]He was alleged to be carrying on the business of a liquor «dealer without having first procured a license authorizing him so to do, as required by an ordinance of the board of supervisors of said county.
It is admitted that he is carrying on that business in the city of Modesto and county aforesaid, and that he has not paid the license required by said county ordinance.
He contends, that having paid a license tax as liquor dealer to the corporate authorities of said city, by virtue of an ordinance thereof, that he cannot legally be required to pay any to the county.
The board of supervisors of Stanislaus County passed an ordinance in due form on the sixth day of October, 1884, which, among other things, declared that, “ every person who sells spirituous, malt, or fermented liquors or wines in less quantities than one quart, must obtain a license from the collector, as prescribed in this order, and make therefor the following payments ”: —
“Those making sales to the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars and over constitute the first class, and must pay a license tax of forty dollars per quarter.
“ Those making sales of less than two thousand five hundred dollars as a monthly average constitute the second class, and must pay a license tax of twenty dollars per quarter.
“ Every person who, at any fixed place of business, sells any goods, wares, or merchandise, wines, or distilled liquors, drugs, or medicines .... must obtain from the tax collector of this county, and for each branch of such business, license, and pay quarterly therefor an amount to be determined by the class in which such person is placed by the tax collector.....All licenses herein provided for (except as otherwise provided) must be procured from the tax collector for not less than three months, in advance.”
It does not therefore appear at all' doubtful that the [610]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)