Case Name: ELLA RYAN, as Executrix, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY et al., Respondents
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1920-08-25
Citations: 49 Cal. App. 71
Docket Number: Civ. No. 2203
Parties: ELLA RYAN, as Executrix, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 71–77

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 2203.
Third Appellate District.
August 25, 1920.]
ELLA RYAN, as Executrix, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY et al., Respondents.
Bed-light Abatement Act—Cancellation of Order of Abatement—Discretion of Trial Court—Burden of Showing Good Faith—Finding.—By the use of the word “may” in section 9 of the Bed-light Abatement Act, providing that, upon certain conditions in that section specified, the court may, if satisfied of the good faith of the applicant, cancel its previous order of abatement and order the premises reopened, the legislature intended to vest discretion in trial court in granting or refusing an application to reopen; and upon such an application the burden rests upon the applicant to show his good faith, and the court is required to determine the existence of this good faith the same as it would determine another question of fact.
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate to compel the cancellation of an order of abatement entered in a proceeding under the Red-light Abatement Act.
Petition dismissed.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the .court.
Meredith, Landis & Chester and White, Miller, Needham & Harber for Petitioners.
Hugh B. Bradford, District Attorney, and J. R. Hughes, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondents.
Edwin E. Grant, Amicus Curiae.

Opinion:
PREWETT, P. J., pro tem.
The people of the state of California, on the relation of the district attorney of said county, brought an action against said petitioners under the provisions of the Red-light Abatement Act (Stats. 1913, p. 20) to enjoin the maintenance of a nuisance on certain premises known as the Casino Dance Hall. The court, on the trial, found that the nuisance existed and in due course entered its decree for the abatement thereof. This decree was subsequently affirmed on appeal. Thereafter, the petitioners made application to said superior court for an order directing the delivery to the owners of the property affected by the decree and canceling thé order of abatement. The petitioners offered to execute the bond required by said act and to pay the costs theretofore incurred.
Section .9 of said act provides that the court, if satisfied of the good faith of the applicant, may order the premises reopened: The entry of such an order is in the discretion of the trial court. While it is true that the word "may" is sometimes construed to mean "must" where it is evident that the legislature so intended it, still, in view of the purposes of the Red-light Abatement Act, the character of the evil to be dealt with and the difficulty in establishing evasion of the decree, it is evident that the legislature intended to vest discretion in the trial court in granting or refusing' an application to reopen.
Moreover, the trial court must be satisfied of the good faith of the applicant. No showing of such good faith was attempted. Indeed, no evidence was offered upon the point. The burden rests upon the petitioners to show their good faith.. The court is required to determine the existence of this good faith the same as it would determine any other question of fact.
The demurrer is sustained and the petition dismissed.