IN BE AH KIT.
He invested the $400 in another slave, and sold the other for $6,000, evidently in Confederate money. For this he settles a claim which, scaled down, amounted to $3,265.62, and which, after the' land was sold and proceeds applied to it, left, with accrued interest, $3,229.53, a specialty debt against a perfectly solvent eatate. This attempt by the indorsement to settle the Raymond note to the trusts of the deed is null and void as to creditors. Nor is there any evidence of an adversze holding by the trustee, which cap give currency to the statute of limitations as against the assignee. Not only was there no notice of the trust until 1875, but when it was disclosed W. M. Thomas claimed the note as his own property. The bankrupt cannot plead the statute against his assignee. Mrs. Thomas has departed. this life. The children are not parties to this suit.· This is not necessary. Vetterleinv. Barnes, 124, U. S. 172, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441; Avery v. Oleary, 132 U.S; 604, 10 Sup. Ct.Rep. 220. . William M. Thomas claims counsel fee for his services in securing the fund. He was not bound to render these services. He conducted the case of Thomas v. Raymond in the state court by his attorneys, Messrs. Perry & Perry, then by Messrs. Earle & Blythe, and when they went out i)f the case managed it himself. He was in all the litigation over the Raymond estate,-the record shows at least three cases. He is entitled to reimbursement for money expended and to compensation for services rendered in protecting the claim represented by the Raymond note. Let the case go back to Mr.Seabruok, who will inquire and report what services were rendered, and sums were e:xopended by William M. Thomas after the adjudication in bilnkruptcy in redeeming the pledge of the note of Mary Raymond and in. the suits of Thomas v. Raymond, v. R(lymond,and an other suits growing out of the contest between the mortgagees of 13:. H. Ra.ymond and the creditors of his mother, Mary H. R.uymond,and the vlilue of such services,. When these are ascertained, they will be paid out of the fund, and the remainder will be paid over to A.Blythe,,'assignee·
.1'11. re AH KIT.
(otrCW£t 001ll7't, N. D. Oa1J£jorn:fa. October 27, 1890.)
Col!lSTrrtlTIOIUL LAw-FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
City ordina,nce No. 2191 of San Francisco, making it a punishable offense to visit any gambling place located within certain specified limits,which designates what is known as the "Chinese quarter," applies to all alike, lli.nce white men as well as .Chinese live therein, and tbe prohibitlOnextends to "any person,"irrespective of race or color, 'and is not therefore within the language Of the fourteenth amend,
Petition for Writ of Habeas Ompua. Alfred Olarke, for petitioner.
Davia Louderback, for respond,ent.
HAWLEY,J. Petitioner was arrested for violating the provisions of sectioIl lof ordinance No. 2191, which, among othel' things, prohibita limits, in the any person from visiting any gambling place city and county of San Francisco, defined as follows: "Bounded by the north side of California streetjeast side of Powell street, and the north side of Broadway." Authority, to enact ()rdinancea of this nature is expressly given to the munioipality by the state constitution, (article 11, §§'7, Hi) and Buch ordinanoeshave been declaredconstitutionalQY the suprerne court·of the '.state,(& Parte Larw, 76. Cal. 087, 18 Pac. Rep. 677 iIn re ltinehan,72 Cat Ho, 13 Pac. Rep. 170.) If there are any provisions-in this ordinance which are made aple by the general statutes of the state, and fOf not able under the ordinance, (In re Sic, 73 Cal. 142, 14 Pac. Rep. 4Qo,)it will be time enough to dispose.of such questions when they arise. , It is sufficient to say that the charge against petitioner does not raise any such question. ,, There are no federal questions involved in this case. Theprovision in the ordinance making:it, i1i'misdemeanor for any. to become a to, any "place for.thepractice of gambling". doesnot ill any manner conflict with any, of the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of tbe'United States. The Lawndry Ca8es, upon which petitioner principally relies, !lore essentially different from this. There the facts shown estabHshed..An administration directed 80 exclusively against a particular clas8 of perlions as to warrant and l'equ,ire the conclusipn tbat, whatever may bave been the iJltent of the ordin,a.nce as a.dopted, they are a.ppljed by the public a,utborities charged with anll thus representing the state itself. witb a mind sounequal.ando(lpresSive 8s.toamount to a practical denial by the state of that eqU'dl proteotiori 'of the laws Which ill:securedto tbe petitioners, as toallotber 'persons,b,y;the broad and benign provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United Statelll' Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Ill:! U. S. 373, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064. Here the ordinance in its practical operation and effect applies to all alike. There is no discrimination against any class of persons on account of their race or color. The provisions of the ordinance are necessary for the protection of society, the ,peace, at:ld good order of the community, and are in their nature and 'effect of the character which belong to the are generally police power' of the state. Althought4e,liIlJits, as designated and known as the "Chinese quarter," yet the fact is that white limits. Moremen well as Chinese live and own property within (ivElr; any person, or color, found visiting any gambling plaoetherein, is liable to arrest and punishment. , i 1$ ,remanded tqthe custody from whence he came.
In '1"'6 An. Toy.
1. HABEAS CORPus-RETURN-SUFJ!'ICIRNOY-CITY ORDINANClliB." " ' A return to the writ of hapeaa by the chief of police of ,a city, stating that petitioner is heW. b;r virtue of a warrant of the police liourt wAerein petitioner had bOOn cl)nvicted of VIsiting a house ,of.ill fame, and sentenced to imprisonment, is not for,failure to state the' l)rdi1l,ance under which he was convicted, when . , such: ordiuanCl8,JNas set out iidb,e vetition. ' la.MUNIOlPAL ,ORDINANOllS-V ALIDITT-DI$OBl)ERLYBoUSlliS-r.....UNI!BIEB. The fact thataseetion of a cityordin!lllcerelatjng:to laundries has beeD, adjudged void does not afteet the validity of. of the same orqinan06 whioh prohibits tne keeping of hou8611 of .ill and the frequenting thereof.
Habeas CorpU8. Alfred (ffn,rke, for petitioner.
HAWLEY, J. The return to the-writ stares that petitioner is held in custody by the chief of police of the city and county of San Francisco under and by virtue of a commitment regularly issued from the police court of said city and county,statirig.that petitioner had been.duly convicted of a misdemeanor in visiting a house of ill fame, and sentenced to pay a fine, with thealternative,of imprisonment. The return does not state under what particular ordinance petitioner was convicted, and petitioner therefore claims that the facts stated in the return are not sufficient to justify his imprisonment. .The petition for the writ alleges that petitioner is in custody for a supposed violation of section 33 of order 1587 of the board of supervisors,and claims that he is entitled to his discharge upon the ground that said order is null and void. Upon the hearing before the commissioner; to whom this matter was referred, it was shown by petitioner that he was convicted of a violation of order 1955, "amendatory of section 33 of order 1587, prohibiting disorderly houses, houses of ill fame, and places for the' practice of gambling." This amendatory order expressly provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to "become an inmate of, or a visitor to, * * * any * * * house oiill fame." It thereforeaffinnatively appears that the defects complained of in the return 'were supplied by the' allegations of the petition and proofs offered by petitioner. The demurrer to the return is overrUled. The contention of petitioner's counsel, that order 1587 had been declared null and void· by the supreme court of the United States in the cases Qf Ywk Wo v. Hopkim, and Woo Lee v. Hopkim, 118 U. S. 856, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064, is utterly devoid of merit. The fact that section 68 of order 1587, relating exclusively to maintaining. and carrying on laundries, has been declared invalid, in no respect impairs the validity. force, or e·ffect of other sections of the order,relating to entirely separate, independent, and distinct subjects. The legal principles announced b) the supreme court in the Lawndry Ca888 have no application toa case like this. In I('e Ah Kit, ante, 793:, (recently decided;) In re Ohri8ten8en, 11 Sup.Ct. Rep. 13. The petitioner is remanded.