Blumenthal v. Municipal Court

HERMAN BLUMENTHAL, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, Respondent.

COUNSEL

Ellis J. Horvitz for Petitioner.

Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel (Los Angeles), and Donald K. Byrne, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General, and Arthur L. Martin, Deputy Attorney General, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum

SHEA, J. pro tem. fn. *

Petitioner seeks to prohibit further proceedings in the respondent court. He challenges the constitutionality of the statute under which he is charged. After his motion to dismiss was denied by the municipal court, on June 18, 1959, he petitioned the superior court for a writ of prohibition. In that petition he raised the same issue that is presented in his petition before this court. The petition was denied by the superior court.

This presents the same situation that was before this court in Lambert v. Municipal Court, 174 Cal. App. 2d 601 [345 P.2d 98]. The rule of that case is decisive here.

The alternative writ heretofore issued is discharged and the petition is denied.

Fourt, Acting P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.

FN *. Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.