Ex parte Davis
California Supreme Court
Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court to review the conviction of petitioner by the Recorder’s Court of the City of Watsonville, County of Santa Cruz. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
The petitioner was convicted in the recorder’s court of the city of Watsonville upon a complaint charging him with keeping open a saloon in said city for the sale of intoxicating drinks, between the hours of twelve o’clock at night and five o’clock the following morning. “All of which [so the complaint charges] is contrary to the form of the ordinance in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the state of California.”
It is claimed that the imprisonment of petitioner in *447pursuance of said conviction is unlawful, because the complaint charges…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- City of Solomon v. HughesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1880
- State ex rel. City of Dubuque v. LeiberSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
- Town of Laporte City v. GoodfellowSupreme Court of Iowa · 1877
- City of McPherson v. NicholsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1892
3Cited by24 opinions
- Greif v. DulleaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- City of Tulare v. HevrenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Tipp v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
- City of Lewiston v. FraryIdaho Supreme Court · 1966
- Taylor v. City of SandersvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.