Ex parte Halsted
Before: Paterson
Synopsis
Jurisdiction of Police Court — Petit Larceny—Los Angeles — Whitney Act. — The city of Los Angeles, so far as its police courts are concerned, is governed by the act of March 18, 1885, known as the Whitney act, establishing police courts in cities having more than thirty thousand and less than one hundred thousand inhabitants, and conferring upon the police court exclusive jurisdiction of certain public offenses, including petit larceny.
Id.—Habeas Corpus — Time of Application of Whitney Act.—Upon an application for a release on habeas corpus of one convicted of the crime of petit larceny in the police court of Los Angeles, it is unnecessary to determine the precise time when that city passed into the class of cities entitled to police courts, where it is apparent that it certainly changed long prior to the arrest, conviction, and commitment of the petitioner.
Id. —Place of Imprisonment for Non-payment of Fine — City Jail. — There is no conflict between the provisions of the Penal Code and those of the Whitney Act (act of March 18, 1885), in regard to the place of imprisonment for non-payment of a fine of persons convicted in the police courts, and the police court has the power to direct imprisonment in the city jail as a means of collecting a fine of all persons convicted in such courts.
Id. —Requirement of Labor — Review upon Habeas Corpus. —The fact that persons imprisoned in the city jail may be required to labor, which may impose a hardship different from that suffered by persons outside of such cities, cannot be considered upon habeas corpus.
Paterson, J. The petitioner was convicted of the crime of petit larceny in the police court of the city of Los Angeles, and as a penalty therefor the court imposed a fine of $150, and in default of payment thereof, ordered that he be imprisoned in the city jail of the city of Los Angeles one day for each and every dollar of said fine remaining unpaid.
It is claimed by his counsel that there was no police [472]court in the city of Los Angeles on the day of the arrest, conviction, and commitment of the petitioner, and that if such court existed, there was no authority to commit the petitioner to the city jail.
The judgment against the petitioner was entered on the fifth day of February, 1891. At that time, and long prior thereto, the city of Los Angeles was a city having over thirty thousand inhabitants. It was intimated by the court at the oral argument that the census was complete, so far as the classification of cities is concerned, as soon as the returns were filed in the office of the superintendent of census at Washington. It is unnecessary, however, for us in this case to determine the precise time at which the city of Los Angeles passed into the class of cities having more than thirty thousand and less than one hundred thousand inhabitants. It certainly changed long prior to the arrest, conviction, and commitment of the petitioner. We held in People v. Henshaw, 76 Cal. 436, that the act of March 18, 1885, popularly known as the Whitney act, is not obnoxious to section 1 of article 11 of the constitution, providing that “ all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation ”; that the act is not local or special legislation; that the legislature has the power to classify municipal corporations according to population; and that it has power to pass general laws affecting municipal corporations, without reference to the question whether such corporations were formed before or after the adoption of the constitution of 1879. It follows, therefore, that the city of Los Angeles, so far as its police courts are concerned, is now governed by the provisions of the Whitney act. That act confers upon the police court exclusive jurisdiction of certain public offenses, including petit larceny.
The only question which remains to be considered is, whether the police court has power-to imprison in the city jail as a means of collecting a fine.
[473]
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)