Brown v. Board of Police Commissioners

WARD, J. This is an appeal by the Board of Police Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles and the members of such board, respondents in the court below, from a judgment in favor of petitioner, Chas. J. Brown, decreeing that such respondents issue him a permit for the conduct of a game called “Defiance.” In order to avoid confusion by reason of respondents in the court below being appellants on this appeal, we will refer to them as the Board, and to the respondent on this appeal as petitioner.

Pursuant to chapter XIX of the Charter of Los Angeles, and in the manner prescribed by the provisions of section 23.01 of the Municipal Code—Ordinance Number 77,000, of said city, the Board of Police Commissioners has the sole and exclusive power and authority to issue permits for the conduct in the city of Los Angeles of certain games referred to in the ordinance as “games of skill and science.”

On October 9, 1940, petitioner filed with the board an application in proper form for a permit to conduct such an enterprise at the “Venice Amusement Zone” in the city of Los Angeles, which was denied, the board finding that, while petitioner was of good moral character, and that the game, if in fact one of skill and science and not one of chance, would comport with public welfare, it was in doubt as to which classification the game came under.

[476]Following the board’s refusal to grant a permit, this action was initiated by a complaint praying for declaratory relief. The board interposed a demurrer, which was sustained, as was a demurrer interposed to petitioner’s first amended complaint. A second amended complaint, which also set out a cause of action for declaratory relief only and asked no other relief, * was filed, and a demurrer to that overruled, after which the board answered. At the conclusion of a trial, the ease as then made out was submitted and the court ordered judgment in favor of petitioner on the second amended complaint. Before the judgment was signed, petitioner filed a new application for a permit with the board, which it denied upon the ground that the court had not, in the judgment ordered, directed that a permit be issued. Counsel for the board thereupon agreed with counsel for petitioner that a third amended complaint praying for the issuance of a writ of mandate should be filed, so that the board could then issue the permit if so ordered. Accordingly, and pursuant to this stipulation, a third amended complaint was filed, in which was added a cause of action and prayer for such relief. By the stipulation mentioned it was agreed that the board’s answer to the second amended complaint should be deemed an answer to count I of the new complaint, and that certain portions of the new and second cause of action should be denied and other portions admitted, so that the issues as joined appear in: (1) petitioner’s third amended complaint; (2) the board’s answer to the second amended complaint, and (3) the admissions and denials stipulated to as above mentioned." The issues thus finally presented were (a) whether or not the game which it was proposed to invite the public to play was a game of chance or one of skill and science—the petitioner affirming it is the former, and the board taking no stand on the question; (b) whether or not a controversy on this point thus existed between them—which the board denied; (c) whether or not the playing of the game would constitute a nuisance and would not comport with the public welfare; and (d) whether or not the petitioner is entitled to have issued to him the permit demanded so that it is the duty of the board to issue it.