San Francisco Municipal Reports Volume 2 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1898 Excerpt: ... on both sides, in the elaborate printed bricfs presented by them, urge the filing of a written opinion hereln. The questions involved are of such a character that the Court considers it a proper case for such an opinion; several questions of practice belng involved and an interpretation of the statute under which the prosecution was had, being calad for. JURISDICTION. The first question raised is that of jurisdiction. The prosecution was had under the statute of March 26, 1895, which is unquestionably a constitutional statute and one caariy within the police power of the Legislature. The preservation of the health of the citizen Is one of the first dutics of government. (Powell vs. Com., 114 Pa. St., 294; S. C. 127 U. S., 678; Peopa vs. Cipperiy, 37 Hun., 324; S. C, 101 N. Y., 634; State vs. Groves, 2 Ati. Rep. (R. I.), 784; State vs. Smith, 14 R. I., 100; S. C, 51 Am. Rep., 344; Com. vs. Evans, 132 Mass., 11; Com. vs. Smith, 103 Mass., 444; Com. vs. Wentworth, 118 Mass., 441; State vs. Newton, 45 N. J. L., 469; S. C, 50 N. J. L., 534; Picrce vs. State, 63 Md., 592; Butar vs. Cambers, 36 Minn., 69; State vs. Addington, 12 Mo. App., 214; S., 77 Mo., 117; Phillip vs. Lee, 75 111., 334; Bainbridge vs. State, 30 Ohio St., 264; U. S. vs. Bayard, 16 Fed. Rep., 384; State vs. Campbell, 64 N. H., 402; Peopa vs. West, 44 Hun., 162; S. C, 106 N. Y., 296; State vs. Aronsberg, 105 N. Y., 123; S. C, 59 Am. Rep., 483.) It is urged by appellant, that by reason of the possiba penalty of the act, the Police Court of this city and county had no jurisdiction to try the cause. This same question was presented on habeas corpus proceedings to me and again to Judge Scawell. of this Court, on behalf of Louis Harter, and on both hearings the prisoner was remanded. Subseque...