Case Name: Ex parte GEORGE HEYLMAN, on Habeas Corpus
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1891-12-28
Citations: 92 Cal. 492
Docket Number: No. 20841
Parties: Ex parte GEORGE HEYLMAN, on Habeas Corpus.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 492–493

Head Matter:
[No. 20841.
In Bank.
December 28, 1891.]
Ex parte GEORGE HEYLMAN, on Habeas Corpus.
Municipal Ordinance — License to Peddlers of Meat—Misdemeanor — Habeas Corpus. — Ordinance 1589 of the board of supervisors of the city and county of San Francisco, as amended by ordinance 2216 of the same board, providing that all peddlers of meat from vehicles or baskets shall first procure a license fixed at seventy-five dollars per quarter, and that peddlers of fish, vegetables, fruit, game, poultry, and other like commodities from vehicles or baskets shall procure a license at the rate of ten dollars per quarter, and making it a misdemeanor to violate the ordinance, is valid, and a person convicted thereunder of a misdemeanor in selling meat from a vehicle without paying the license of seventy-five dollars per quarter is not entitled to be released upon habeas corpus.
Application to the Supreme Court for a discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus.
The petitioner was convicted in the police court of the city and county of San Francisco for peddling meat from a vehicle without a license, in violation of ordinance 1589 of the city and county of San Francisco, as amended by ordinance 2216. Ordinance 1589 provided for the licensing of peddlers of meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, game, poultry, etc., at the rate of ten dollars per quarter, and made it a misdemeanor to violate the ordinance. Ordinance 2216, amending ordinance 1589, provided that the rate of license should be, “ for peddlers of meat from vehicles or baskets, seventy-five dollars ($75) per quarter,” and for peddlers of fish, vegetables, fruit, game, poultry, etc., named, from vehicles or baskets, ten dollars per quarter.
Alfred Clarke, for Petitioner.
Davis Louderback, for Respondent.

Opinion:
The Court.
Ordinances similar to that which petitioner was convicted of having violated have frequently-been considered by this court. The validity of such ordinances is not now an open question here.
We are unable to discover any legal ground upon which the petitioner could be discharged.
Petitioner remanded to the custody of the chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco.
Be Haven, J., and Beatty, C. J., dissented.