The record-union., 1896-12-22
THAT POOLROOM ORDINANCE.
Justice DaYiS Holds That Il is COnSti-
tutiOnal.
Municipalities Have the Right to Reg.
ulate Such rlatterS Under the
General Law.

When Al Feidler was arrested ON a
charge Of having violated ordinance
No. APO. better known as the "anti-
poolroom ordinance" it was understood
that its validity would be tested. w. A.
Anderson was retained by the defense,
and when the case was called in the
Police Court he interposed q demurrer
to the complaint.
1t was set forth that two separate
and distinct charges were recounted; !;
that the ordinance was discriminating,
In that 1T allowed pool selling at Agri-
cultural Park, and that matter was
contained in the body of the ordinance
that did not appear in the title, thereby
making 1t misleading, and, according
to a decision Of the Supreme Court,
void.
Justice Davis took the matter under
advisement after the arguments were
in, and yesterday morning rendered his
decision ON the matter, overruling the
demurrer. The decision is as follows:
The defendant in this action is
charged with the violation of ordinance
No. 442 Of the city of Sacramento, COM
monty known as the "poolroOm ordi-
rance" A demurrer Is interposed by
the defendant to the complaint, said
demurrer enumerating several specific
objections thereto, some Of which are
really not necessary to consider, but
some are vital, and raise questions OF
law as to the validity and legality Of
said ordinance.
Numerous decisions have been cited
by counsel in the case, and the court
has been almost dazed by the ava
lanche of authorities and legal points
Of law presented by counsel respective
ly TO the court bearing more or less
on the issues OF law involved.
have examined with great care and
taken much time in this case, and have
studiously inquired into the authorities
and points of law presented. This be-
ing the first case of the kind presented
In amy court in this city I fully realize
the Importance of the matter before
me and the necessity Of a proper judi
c.al determination Of the case as the
same appears to me as Judge of
this court The said ordinance No. Az
has no preamble and the only means
Of knowing it's object is found in its
title. VIZ: IAN ordinance prohibiting
persons from selling pools, or book
horse races wherein money or other ar
ticIes of value are staked or pledged,
or In placing of money for such pur-
poses by carriers, agents, brokers or
commissioners"
The first question to be considered
here is, whether or not the Board of
Trustees of the city of Sacramento had
the power to pass said ordinances? Sec
1 Of irla TT rsP IL
ton of the State of California confers
upon municipalities the power 10 make
and enforce within its limits all such
local police, sanitary and other regula-
tions as are not in conflict with gen
eral laws" Subdivision AZ of Section
- of the Charter of Sacramento con-
fers upon the Board Of Trustees the
powers enumerated in the Constitution
above mentioned Subdivision 10 Of
Section 25 of said charter empowers
things, Ito prohibit or suppress all
gaming and all gambling or disorderly
houses" It will readily be conceded,
ard as question of law cannot be de-
ried, that the prohibited matters and
things mentioned IN the title Of the
ordinance mentioned is gaming. and Is
police regulation, and comes within the
direct powers of Section il of Article
XI. of the Constitution Of this State,
which authorizes municipal corpora
tions to make and enforce within its
limits all such local, police, sanitary
and other regulations as are not in
conflict with the general laws, and Is
further sustained in "ex-parte Tuttle.
01st California"
Defendant raises the objection that
said ordinance Is In conflict with Sec
ton IL, Article l., Of the Constitution
Of the State Of California, which pro-
vides that all laws of a general nature
shall have uniform operation.
It Is certainly no more in conflict with
that section of the Constitution just
quoted than was the ordinance which
was upheld by our Supreme Court in
the case of ex-parte Tuttle, 91st Cal,
$50. In that case and the case at bar
a similar exception Is made, /. G., In our
case the provisions of the ordinance do
no apply to the inclosure of Agricult
ural Park during racing or speed con-
tests there, and In the other case the
provisions Of the ordinance did not ap
ply to the Enclosure of a racetrack
where the races We're being run. An
exception being made, which the Su-
prerne Court in the case just quoted
- -