Los Angeles herald., 1910-02-27
DECISION OF LOWER TRIBUNAL
is AFFIRMED
Judge Davis Gives Opinion That Laws
Enacted by Last Legislature Pro-
tecting Fruit Buying PUB
lie Are Constitutional

tru1t dealers convicted Oh NloidllllS Iiio
provisions of the law, as AMENDED py
the last legislature.
The defendants affected by the decis-
ion are H. Kaplan, George Gedls, u.
Peterman, E. Berekoff, j. Rlbaldl, Ell
nest Gerleman, William H. Smith ana
w. Stormer, but supporting the attack
on the law was a large number OF trult
dealers who had associated themselves
together for the purpose OF having the
validity of the law determined. 1t Is
probable the matter will be taken to
higher court.
Renders Verbal Opinion
Judge Davis gave no written opinion,
but upon the question of the Valldlty
of the new legislation which, the fruit
dealers claimed, imposed burdensoine
conditions on their business, he said IN
part:
"a point raised on this appeal, and
that to which the argument mas peeh
mainly directed, is the question or the
validity of this enactment, II pelns
| contended, on the appellants pehaI,
that the same is in part uncon-
| stitutional. - :. t.
"In support of this contention 1t IS
principally urged that the act is an uIl-
reasonable interference with ana re-
striction upon the rights OF persons
engaged in the BUSINESS OF handliiis
/ fruits. Reference Is lllelNtO " NA-S
foult. If not impracticable, REQUIRE
! ment of the statute that all FOODS I'M
Guiding fruits and berries) be 'securely
protected from flies, dust, dirt, etc,,
! when considered in connection Will
| the modern methods of marketing @ @tLe
| same: from which it is argued that tIe
| legislature has imposed bufaehsci-iie
and innossible conditions upon busl-
ness, which are not to be 1ustiileu, ,aa %
- Iaeitimate exercise of the police
power of the state. ..a+od
"On the other hand, it is insisted
| that the act in question snoulu ps
given a reasonable Interpretation, anu
that when so construed it does not re-
| nuire impossibilities, nor place UNIQUE
restricfions or burdens upon any legl-
| innate business, but that its reguld-
tions find their justification in the ne
! cessitv for the protection OF the lesd,
rights of others. and must be sustained
as a valid exercise of the police power
| THE mower referred to extendS 10 tIlo
protection of persons ana propo, ~
within the state. In order 10 secul
that protection it is Fundamental that
these NAV be subjected to restraints
| and burdens by legislative acts. II
| this act is a reasonable ana Vaiiu eA1t
| cise of the police power Oh lne sta'e
then it must be submitted 10, as
measure designed for the protectloni ~
| the nubIic. and to secure IL asdliiS
some danger, real or anticipated TO tnt
public health or safety. Inc couIt y
bornd to assume that the laW-maKint
| bodv acted with a desire to proInout
the the public good. The court is ais5 ,i5
| hound to respect the legislative VII
unless unless the act declaring it be .I clearly a. ,1
inconsistent Moons with the fundamental law
any consideration of the, ques1thloi 1ho
presented has not convinced me Una, una
this act, in its e~ntlrety, ~ may in hormon, ,o ot
With " the constitution. and be suscepti
ile Ne of sane enforcement. But were
the the &C cconstitutionality Of its provisions
involved inv in grave doubt that conGi c, al
tion of itself would not warrant an th, fh
termediate court in suspendlng 'n'
operation of the law.