Wilkinson v. Board of Supervisors

DOOLING, J. pro tem. This is an original proceeding in mandamus by which petitioner seeks to compel respondents to pay petitioner certain amounts as aid to a blind person under chapter I, part I, division V, Welfare and Institutions Code.

Petitioner became blind in an industrial accident in Utah in 1934 and is in receipt of the sum of $54.10 per month as compensation for that injury. He is a lawyer licensed to [346]practice in California and maintains an office for the practice of his profession. He has been a resident of California for more than five years but less than ten. The basis upon which he claims the right to payments as aid to the needy blind is that after deducting his office expenses from the sum of his compensation of $54.10 per month and the fees received from his practice his net income amounts to less than $50 per month. In other words if he closed his office he would have a net income of $54.10 per month but by keeping it open he needs assistance to bring his total net income up to $50 per month.

Before July 1, 1941, petitioner had been receiving payments as a needy blind person and on that date respondent terminated such payments. .Petitioner appealed the order of termination to the State Social Welfare Board. That board first ordered the payments continued but later granted a rehearing and made an order denying petitioner any relief. Petitioner urges that the Social Welfare Board acted in excess of its powers in granting the rehearing. This seems a point of considerable force (see Olive Proration etc. Com. v. Agricultural Prorate Com., 17 Cal.2d 204 [109 P.2d 918]), but in our view of the ease it is not necessary for us to pass upon it.

Basically the question presented to us is whether on the admitted facts petitioner brings himself within the class of persons entitled to an allowance under part I, division V, Welfare and Institutions Code since that part of Welfare and Institutions Code was recast by the Legislature in 1941. Even if the original order of the Social Welfare Board is still in full force and effect, if that order on the admitted facts was contrary to law, mandamus will not issue to compel the making of illegal payments to petitioner. (California Highway Com. v. Riley, 192 Cal. 97, 112 [218 P. 579]; Walton v. McPhetridge, 120 Cal. 440 [52 P. 731].)

To focus attention on the point directly involved, by the 1941 amendment (Stats. 1941, p. 2302) chapter I, part I, division Y, Welfare and Institutions Code was substantially amended and a new chapter III was for the first time adopted. Under chapter I a needy blind person who became blind outside of this state is qualified to receive the aid therein provided for if he has been a resident of this state for one year immediately preceding his application and for five years out of the last nine (§ 3043, Welf. and Inst. Code), while to be