Ex parte Bird
Ex parte Bird
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.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Ex parte BIRD
- Cited By
- 17 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Ex parte Andrews, (18 Cal.) holding the Act of 1861, commonly called the “ Sunday Law,” to be constitutional, affirmed. Where a party was charged with keeping open a bar for the sale of liquors on Sunday, in violation of the Act of 1861, and was convicted and committed to custody, and applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming his discharge on the ground that he kept the bar as part of the business of a hotel, and therefore had not violated the law : Held, that petitioner cannot avail himself of this defense, on this application, but must adopt some other mode—the complaint against him not showing that the bar was kept as part of the hotel business. On habeas corpus it is not competent to retry issues of fact, or to review the proceedings of a legal trial. .