Daily Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1876-1884, 1884-07-04
In the Superior Court OF the county Of
Los Angeles. State of California.

In the Superior Court OF the county Of
Los Angeles, State of California.
TX PARTE JOHN BRENNAN.
The petitioner is before the court on
writ OF habeas corpus, from the return to
which it appears that he is in the custo-
dy OF the Sheriff of this county under
commitment on Judgment of the JUS
tees Court for the city Of Los Angeles,
directing his Imprisonment in the Coun-
ty Jail for sixty days, and that defend
ant, while so imprisoned, perform labor
on the streets or other public works of
the city of Los Angeles"
1t is claimed in his behalf that the por-
ton Of the judgment quoted IA Illegal.
Upon the solution Of this question de-
ponds his right to discharge, for II lille
gal aud void in part. tie Judgment is
void as whole. ET parte Kelly, w.
c. r., vol. IL, p. 7l9.
The statute under which the court as
sumes to act in imposing this sentence Is
somewhat peculiar in its provisions. 1t
is entitled ian act to amend the Char.
ter of the City Of Los Angeles" Stat
utes of 1912, p. 1884,
The first five sections contain provi-
sions for grading, improving and open
ing streets, regulating zahjas, establish
in a water fund, etc., and have unques-
tionably been repealed by the subsequent
charters of said city.
Section six contains provisions alts-
gether foreign to the title and general
purport of the act. 1t provides that in
the county Of Los Angeles the several
Justices Courts may, in their discretion,
on conviction of misdemeanor. sentence
the persons convicted "to perform labor
on the streets or other public works of
said city of Los Angeles, in lieu of soli-
tary confinement in the County Jail of
said county, as now provided by law"
1t empowers such courts "to enforce
all such judgments so rendered by them,
which labor shall be performed by the
person or persons so convicted and SEN
fenced as is now or may hereafter be
prescribed by the ordinances Of the said
city OF Los Angeles" The augment
here undertakes to impose labor In addi-
lion TO, instead of in lieu Of, confinement
in the County Jail This labor is inn
posed by the statute as a punishment
for crime committed against the people
of the State Of California, yet its mode
and extent is left to the varying will Of
successive Councils of the city OF Los
Angeles.
This power is altogether foreign to
any purpose for which municipal corpo-
rations are created, and one which
seriously doubt the power of the Legisla-
ture to confer upon them.
Such statute, if passed since the
adoption of the new constitution, would
be clearly void, as opposed to Sec. "a,
Art. ", thereof, declaring, Every act
shall embrace but one subject, which
subject shall be expressed in its title;"
and also to Sec. 25, Art. ", prohibiting
special legislation ''for the punishment
OF crimes and misdemeanors." But a
somewhat similar provision to the form
or Ia the old constitution has always
been held by the Supreme Court of this
State as directory, merely, and the lat
ter provision of the new has been held |
by the same court as having no retro
active effect.
l, however. feel it unnecessary to pass
upon the constitutionality of the act, or
upon the question as to the conformity |
of the judgment to its provisions, as [
am of opinion that it has been repealed |
by the act of March l4th, 1889, popularity |
known as the County Government bill.
Sec. 25, Sub. 30, Stats. of 1888, p. 30S. |
BY it the Board of Supervisors is given
the power "to provide for the working
of prisoners confined in the County Jail
under Judgment of conviction Of misde
meanor under the direction of some re-
sponsible persons, upon the public
grounds, roads, streets, alleys, highways,
orpublic buildings. or in such other places
as may be deemed advisable for the
benefit of the County"
The power given by implication to
the City Council in the act of Feb. l4th,
1872, is inconsistent with the power
here given to the Board of Supervisors
and must yield to it.
The punishment provided in the act is
to perform such labor as the ordinances
Of the city may prescribe, and in the
manner by them established.
The Council no longer having the
power to pass such ordinances, the
power Of the courts to impose such
sentences ceases.
In other words, portion OF the act
being repealed, the remainder depend
ent upon and not able to stand without
the part repealed falls with it.
| am therefore of opinion that the
judgment is void, and that the defend
ant is entitled to his discharge, and it is
so ordered.
will also add that the County Gov l
ernment Bill, in providing for the work
ing of county convicts. under the well
recognized power of the State, to the
labor Of those with whose support it is
bnrdened, necessarily repeats by i'm
plication statute which imposes such
labor as punishment for crime.
Again the Bill, under the Constitution
is to have uniform and general
operation, which it would not have If
the provisions of the act of Feb. l4th,
1872, remained in effect.
HENRY M. SMITH.
July LIST, 1884. Judge.