In re Bickerstaff
California Supreme Court
Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
The petitioner was convicted of keeping a saloon in the city of Stockton without having obtained a license as required by an ordinance passed the 25th of May, 1885.
The ordinance was passed under charter provisions which empowered the municipal legislature, among other things, “to license, regulate, tax .... all tippling-houses, dram-shops, saloons, bars, bar-rooms, etc., .... and to fix and collect a license tax upon all occupations and trades, and all and every kind of business, authorized by law, not heretofore specified”; and it provides “that in the business of selling intoxicating…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Metropolitan Board of Excise v. . BarrieNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- In re GuerreroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Leigton v. MaurySupreme Court of Virginia · 1882
- The People v. . MeyersNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Whitten v. Mayor of CovingtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1871
3Cited by11 opinions
- In Re FullerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Floresta, Inc. v. City CouncilCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Sprayberry v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Laurelle v. BushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Pueblo v. RubioSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.