The San Francisco call., 1904-03-01

of such permit would under the law
forfeit the same upon a hearing after
due. notice to all parties concerned"
The. decision deals principally with the
question whether notice was given to
satisfy: the legal requirements. a re-
eital Of the facts relative to the pro-
ceedings before the Harbor Commis-
'sioners is then made as follows:
Pursuant to the provisions of this act. the
plaintiff. on the Sth day OF May 1908. applied
for ana received a permit. On December 4.
1902. the Harbor Commissioners made an order
reNOking and caaceling the permit. In the
present action the plaintiff seeks injunction
TO restrain the defendant from interfering with
his sales and bases his application upon the
contention that the plaintiff has never had the
notice or the hearing provided for in this act.
and that therefore the attempted revocation
was illegal and void l.!
1t appears that on November 81. 1903, the
defendant caused TO be served upon the plain .
board on Thursday, December B. at a stated
hour and place for the purpose of investgat-
ing the alleged violation of the Woodward law.
on November 30 and again on December the
Plaintiff in writing requested that the COM
plainant should file specific charges of the vio-
'l9tion complained OF, giving time, place and
circumstances. and that should be given
a copy of such charges. which we viii be glad
10 answer on twenty-four hours notice"
On December > the board proceeded, without
any other or further or more specific charge or
notice. to hear the statements of the plaintiff
ana OtherS. ana. after nearing said statement,
passed resolution revoking the plaintiffs per-
NIT.
-, POWERS OF BOARD.
> Judge Sloss next considers whether
the board had the power to order the
revocation of the permit to Wetmore
Bros. on this point he says in sub
stance:
The purpose of the notice and hearing pro-
vida in 2 ie 10 fra hoGd
of a permit. Who is charged with violation
Of the agreement pursuant to which ne holds
it, to appear before the board. and defend
against the charge OF such violation: Ii is
clear. further that before one accused Of. vio-
lation. Of law can defend against such charge
there must be an accusation. OF some specific
offense. and he must have notice of what he
is charged with. .
The principle that there must be citation
before. hearing, and hearing or opportunity OF
being heard before judgment, is essential to
the security. of all private. rights The notice
here relied on merely calls upon the plaintiff
to appear before the board for: the purpose
of Investigating the alleged violation. Waiv'
ing the point that is is not even stated that
such violation has been .'commtted : by the
plaintiff. there is absolutely nothing to indi-
cate TO the party summoned what particular
Violation. OF the law he. Is accused of.
e. The cause for which, under the law, the
permit may. be revoked is a. violation of the
AGREEMENT provided for In this adt. This
agreement contains a number of stipulations-
any one of them may be violated in MUM
ber OF. ways Certainly. party WHO is claimed
to have violated one more OF these .stipula-
uons in -one or. more particulars cannot be
said TO have. due notice when the only in
formation: given him is that he lis charged
with a violation of the provisions Of the law
regulating the sales of perishable products"
" Il is conceded by. learned counsel for the
defendant that 1.-The term. notice and hear
Ing imply. that the accused shall have oppQr-
tunity to appear before the board and defend
the charges made. :: It is urged, however that.
inasmuchs as the act does NOT. proy1de for any
specific form OF notice or for any particular
kind OF herring, tine fofm IF notice and the
nature of the hearing are'in the DISCRETION Of
grnduestionabls the proeieding contemplated
IN this act is mot required: to be conduGted
with the foTmality: and strfctness. Of procedure
observed fin a. trial lin court OF ia The no
tice prgvided .fur in the act need not. contain
all the .requiremants' Of All INDICTMENT in.
. criminal proceeding NOR need the hearing be
.conducled in accordance with the rules OF
evidence goVernihg courts Of Justice But the
notice and heafing proyidea for in the act are
A substantial: right guafanteed to the e: permit
holder by the law. However lnformally the.
charge. may be made. nstice Of some specific
vidiatioi ~ the aSreenient and +. investiga tion
of the facts lelating to such specific charges.
are involved in the very term notice and
hearing :; -: - q. ~
.. = : RIGHT Is >VAI1UABLE.,. -. -
The. right graRteid. to- permit .iolders by. the
Woodward law rs "a valuable one It. Is per-
fectry true; that; this privilege is which,
the: Staie may: graft, or withhold At it's dis
cfetion. anu that the STATE might have made
the privilege 'reY9cable at the discretion OF the
Board ef state 'Harbor' .Commissiohefs hut it
has not seen: fit To do so.t The 1,eglslature has
provided that 'tiie"right shall not be revoked
except upon due notice and after a. hearing.
and has. thereby. conferred upon the. permit
holder. the safeguards which are necessarily
implied in the term hearing" -
L DO NOT think that the fact that the plain.
tiff appeared at the time and place set was
a waiver ~ specific charges. It: is sought by
the defendants TO draw an, analogy between
this notice and the summons in "a civil action.
and TO. apply the rule that a voluntary ap-
pearance in court by defendant without proper
service Of a summons is waiver of any de.
fects in the service. But the notice provided
for in this act is than summons. 1t
is at once "a summons with a complaint; and
while the appearance of the person cited might
and probably would be a waiver of any defect
in the notice regarding the time and place
of the hearing IL cannot dispense with the
requirement Of a charge upon which the. hear
ing is to proceed.
l conclude. therefore, that the proceedings
before the Board of Harbor Commissioners on
December were Intellectual TO take away the
rights of the plaintiff under the permit.