gno.law

Ex parte Bird

California Supreme Court · · 1861-07-01 · Published · 19 Cal. 130

Ex parte BIRD

Area
other
Panel
Joseph G. Baldwin (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Baldwin

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. and Cope, J. concurring.

We think there is no ground shown in the petition for the issuance of the writ. We have held already, in ex parte Andrews, that the “ Sunday Law,” as it is commonly called, is constitutional. We are entirely satisfied with that decision. It seems that the petitioner was convicted of a violation of this law. He claims in his petition that he did not violate its provisions; that he kept a bar in the hotel, as a part of the business of the hotel, and this is the sole charge against him. If this be true, he must avail himself in some other mode of this matter of defense. The writ of habeas corpus was not framed to retry issues of fact, or to review the proceedings of a legal trial. The complaint does not show that the bar was kept as a part of the business of the hotel.

Petition refused.

Cited by