From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex parte Davis

Supreme Court of California
Dec 29, 1896
115 Cal. 445 (Cal. 1896)

Summary

In Ex parte Davis, 115 Cal. 445, [47 P. 258], the proceeding was in habeas corpus and involved the sufficiency of the complaint before a recorder's court for the violation of a city ordinance.

Summary of this case from Ex Parte Hansen

Opinion

Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court to review the conviction of petitioner by the Recorder's Court of the City of Watsonville, County of Santa Cruz.

COUNSEL:

An ordinance is a private statute. A complaint is defective which does not recite any part of the ordinance, or state its title. (Miles v. Kern, 12 Mont. 119; Austin v. Walton, 68 Tex. 507; Pen. Code, sec. 963.) As courts cannot take judicial notice of statutes until pleaded as required by section 963 of the Penal Code, and as no public offense under the general law is stated, defendant is entitled to his discharge on habeas corpus. (Ex parte Kearny , 55 Cal. 212.)

George P. Burke, and Sullivan & Sullivan, for Petitioner.

David F. Mahon, City Attorney, for Respondent.


The city court may take judicial notice of city ordinances without proof. (State v. Leiber, 11 Iowa 407; Solomon v. Hughes, 24 Kan. 211; 1 Rice on Evidence, sec. 24; 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 3d ed., sec. 413; Tiedeman on Municipal Corporations, sec. 158; McPherson v. Nichols, 48 Kan. 430; note to Lanfear v. Mestier, 89 Am. Dec. 668, 669; 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1st ed., 168, 169; Laporte v. Goodfellow, 47 Iowa 572; Downing v. Miltonvale, 36 Kan. 740.)

JUDGES: In Bank.

OPINION

THE COURT The petitioner was convicted in the recorder's court of the city of Watsonville upon a complaint charging him with keeping open a saloon in said city for the sale of intoxicating drinks, between the hours of twelve o'clock at night and five o'clock the following morning. "All of which [so the complaint charges] is contrary to the form of the ordinance in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the state of California."

It is claimed that the imprisonment of petitioner in pursuance of said conviction is unlawful, because the complaint charges no offense, and that it charges no offense because it does not plead the ordinance by title, date of passage, or in any manner except in the general terms above quoted.

The argument in support of this position is, that the ordinances of municipal corporations are private statutes; that courts do n ot take judicial notice of private statutes; [47 P. 259] and, consequently, that they must be pleaded and proved like other material facts.

It is true, as a general proposition, with reference to proceedings in the courts of superior or general jurisdiction, that municipal ordinances are regarded as private statutes, and must be pleaded and proved. In this state, however, even in the superior courts, it is sufficient to refer to them by title and date of passage, whereupon the court must take judicial notice of them. (Pen. Code, sec. 963.) But when the proceeding is in a municipal court, instituted for the express purpose of enforcing the municipal ordinances, and vested with full jurisdiction for that purpose, the rule ought to be and is different. In such case, the ordinances are the peculiar law of that forum, and it is bound to take notice of their existence. To such laws it holds the same relation that the superior courts hold to the laws enacted by the legislature, and may notice their provisions because they are among the things which, as to it, are established by law. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1875, subd. 2.) The following authorities bear out this view: Solomon v. Hughes, 24 Kan. 211; McPherson v. Nichols, 48 Kan. 430; note to Lanfear v. Mestier, 89 Am. Dec. 668, 669; State v. Leiber, 11 Iowa 407; Laporte v. Goodfellow, 47 Iowa 572.

These cases show that the practice in municipal courts, with respect to municipal ordinances, constitutes an exception, and a proper and necessary exception, to the rule invoked by the petitioner. The complaint, therefore, was sufficient, if there was an ordinance prohibiting the acts charged, and, as to that, we must presume, in this proceeding, which raises only the question of jurisdiction, that there was such an ordinance of which the recorder's court took judicial notice.

Prisoner remanded.


Summaries of

Ex parte Davis

Supreme Court of California
Dec 29, 1896
115 Cal. 445 (Cal. 1896)

In Ex parte Davis, 115 Cal. 445, [47 P. 258], the proceeding was in habeas corpus and involved the sufficiency of the complaint before a recorder's court for the violation of a city ordinance.

Summary of this case from Ex Parte Hansen

In Ex parte Davis, 115 Cal. 445, [47 P. 258], it is said that when the proceeding is in a municipal court, ordinances of such municipality are the peculiar laws of that forum, and of which judicial notice will be taken, because they are among the things which, as to it, are established by law. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1875, subd. 2.) And such courts are instituted for the express purpose of enforcing municipal ordinances.

Summary of this case from Ex Parte Luening
Case details for

Ex parte Davis

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte L. H. DAVIS on Habeas Corpus

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Dec 29, 1896

Citations

115 Cal. 445 (Cal. 1896)
47 P. 258

Citing Cases

People v. Mueller

There is an exception, immaterial here, with regard to judicial notice of ordinances by local inferior courts…

People v. Crittenden

Municipal courts take notice of ordinances which are the law of the forum. ( Ex parte Hansen, 158 Cal. 494 […