Los Angeles herald., 1891-06-20
THE POLICE COURTS.
An Opinion Affirming Their
Legality.
The Petition of Halstead Denied
by the Supreme Court.
Police Judges May Confine Prisoners
in the City Jail.
The Supreme Court Decides That the
Police Courts Have q Legal Status
Under the Whitney Act.


Under the Whitney Act.
The supreme court has handed down
decision denying the application of the
man Halstead, who was convicted in
the police court of this city, for writ of
habeas corpus on the grounds that
when the case was tried the police court
had no legal status. The application
was also based upon the point that po-
lice justices have no power to order
prisoners confined in the city Jail, and
the opinion likewise upholds the city
on this argument. j. A. Donnell and o.
F. Rowland acted for the petitioner and
District Attorney McLachlan for the
respondent. The opinion is as follows:
The prisoner was convicted of the
crime of petty larceny in the police
court of Los Angeles, and as penalty
| therefor the court imposed fine of $3.50
and in default of payment thereof order
ed that he be imprisoned in the city
Jail of the city of Los Angeles one day
for each and every dollar of said fine re-
naming unpaid. 1t is claimeS by his
counsel that there was no police court
in the city of Los Angeles on the day of
the arrest, conviction and commitment
of the petitioner and that, if such court
existed, there was no authority to COM
nit the petitioner to the city Jail.
THE Judgment against the petitioner
was entered on the 5th day of February,
1891. At that time and long prior there
to, the city of Los Angeles was city
having over &C, 900 inhabitants. 1t was
| intimated by the court at the oral argu-
1 naant thot tbQ mo r,1ota On
far as the classification of cities is con-
cerned, as soon as the returns were filed
in the Office of the superintendent of
census, at Washington. 1t is unneces-
sary, however, for us in this case to de-
termine the precise time at which the
city of Los Angeles passed into
the class of cities having more
than 10000 and less than
100000 inhabitants. 1t certainly
changed long prior to the arrest, convic-
ton and commitment of the petitioner.
We held in People VS.. Henshaw, 76 Cal.
436, that the act of March, 1885, popu-
larly known as the Whitney act, is not
obnoxious to section l of article IL of
the constitution, providing that ''all
laws of general nature shall have
uniform operation; that the act is not
local or special legislation; that the leg
islature has the power to classify munic-
ipal corporations according to popula-
ton; and that it has power to pass gen.
eral laws affecting municipal corpora
tions without reference to the question
whether such corporations were formed
before or after the adoption of the con-
stitution of 1879" 1t follows, therefore,
that the city of Los Angeles, so far as
its police courts are concerned. is now
governed by the provisions of the Whit
ney act. That act confers upon the
police court exclusive jurisdiction of
certain public offenses, including petty
larceny.
''The only question which remains to
be considered is whether the police
court has power to imprison in the city
Jail as means of collecting fine.
Section 1446 of the penal code
provides that "a judgment that
the defendant pay a fine may also
direct that he be imprisoned until the
fine be satisfied in the proportion of one
days imprisonment for every dollar of
the ine." There is nothing in the code
which prescribes the place of imprison-
ment for non-payment OF a fine. The
Whitney act does provide that Gin all
cases of imprisonment of persons con-
victed in said police court of any offense
committed in the city, the persons so to
be imprisoned, or by ordinance required
to labor, shall be imprisoned in the city
jail, or, if required to labor, shall labor
in the city," There is, therefore, no
conflict between the provisions of the
code and those of the act referred to,
and we think there can be no doubt of
the power of the police court to direct
imprisonment in the city Jail.
"The suggestion that persons impris-
oned in the city Jail may be required to
labor, which may impose hardship
different from that suffered by persons
outside of cities, cannot be considered in
this proceeding. The judgment itself
does not direct that the prisoner be re-
quired to labor, and, if it did, the judg-
ment as to the imprisonment would
not be void. In ex parte FIJI XII, so Cal.
20l, we held that person convicted for
contempt would be discharged from
hard labor ON writ of habeas corpus, but
would not be discharged from imprson-
ment by reason of being put at such
labor.
"The prisoner is remanded TO the Gus
tody of the chief of police of the city of
Los Angeles. PATERSON, j.
"We concur:
'BEATTY, G. j.,
HARRISON, j.,
GEStr I