Ex parte Cheney
California Supreme Court
Application to the Supreme Court for a discharge upon a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
— The petitioner was convicted in the police court of the city and county of San Francisco of *619violating section 22 of ordinance No. 1603 of said city and county as amended by ordinance No. 2189, and was sentenced “to pay a fine of $250, and in default of payment of said fine to be imprisoned in the county jail of said city and county at the rate of one day for each one dollar of said fine, until said fine is satisfied.” The fine not being paid, he was, on the eighth day of June, 1891, committed to the custody of the sheriff, by whom, at the issuance of the writ herein, he was detained in the…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Odd Fellows' Cemetery Ass'n v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Matter of Yun QuongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- State v. HartIdaho Supreme Court · 1945
- Ex parte ShenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- In Re JonesCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1910
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.