regulate the sale of liquors. (Ex parte Campbell, 74 Cal. 20, 15 Pac. 318; Ex parte Noble, 96 Cal. 362, 31 Pac. 224.)

An ordinance making it unlawful to visit a gambling-house is not in conflict with a provision of the general law making it unlawful to bet at such house. (Ex parte Boswell, 86 Cal. 232, 24 Pac. 1060.)

An ordinance undertaking to punish precisely the same acts which are punishable under the general law of the state is to be deemed in conflict with such general law. (Ex parte Stephen, 114 Cal. 278, 46 Pac. 86; In re Sic, 73 Cal. 142, 14 Pac. 405.)

The mere fact that a certain provision of a city ordinance is in conflict with the general law will not invalidate the entire ordinance if the provisions thereof are separable. (Ex parte Christensen, 85 Cal. 208, 24 Pac. 747.)

An ordinance containing certain regulations as to the burden of proof and the effect of certain acts as evidence is void. (Ex parte Christensen, 85 Cal. 208, 24 Pac. 747.)

A municipal ordinance making it a misdemeanor to fail to remove an obstruction of a sidewalk is not in conflict with the provisions of the general law declaring such an obstruction a nuisance and punishable as such, since the municipality might legalize a partial obstruction of a street. (Ex parte Taylor, 87 Cal. 91, 25 Pac. 258.)

A city ordinance imposing a penalty for having lottery tickets in one's possession, greater than the penalty provided by the general laws for kindred and more serious offenses, is in conflict with the general laws, and void. (Ex parte Solomon, 91 Cal. 440, 27 Pac. 757.)

A city ordinance providing that no opium shall be sold without a prescription of a physician is not in conflict with the state law prohibiting the sale of opium unless a record be kept of the sale and the package marked "poison." (Ex parte Hong Shen, 98 Cal. 681, 33 Pac. 799.)

An ordinance is not inconsistent with the general law merely because it makes another and different regulation on the same subject, when there is no direct conflict between its terms and the provisions of

the state law. (Ex parte Hong Shen, 98 Cal. 681, 33 Pac. 799.)

Where the penalty imposed for the violation of an ordinance conflicts with the provisions of the Penal Code, the penal clause of the ordinance is void. parte Mansfield, 106 Cal. 400, 39 Pac. 775.)

(Ex

An ordinance declaring it unlawful for any person to have in his possession any lottery ticket, unless it be shown that such possession is innocent, is void as in conflict with the general presumption of innocence. (In re Wong Hane, 108 Cal. 680, 41 Pac. 693.)

An ordinance forbidding further interment in the city cemetery is not in conflict with section 3035 of the Political Code. (La Societa etc. v. San Francisco, 131 Cal. 169.)

It is competent for a city ordinance to prohibit all games played for money which are not specifically denounced by the statute. (In re Murphy, 128 Cal. 29, 60 Pac. 465.)

The fact that an ordinance prohibiting games for money includes, by way of general description, games prohibited by statute, as well as those not so prohibited, does not affect the validity of the ordinance; but all games so prohibited by the general laws must be excluded from the operation of the ordinance. (In re Murphy, 128 Cal. 29, 60 Pac. 465.)

Reasonableness, etc.-A municipal ordinance must be consistent with the general powers and purposes of the corporation, must harmonize with the general laws, the municipal charter, and the principles of the common law, and can have no extraterritorial force unless by express permission of the sovereign power. (South Pasadena v. Terminal Ry. Co., 109 Cal. 315, 41 Pac. 1093; Ex parte Green, 94 Cal. 387, 29 Pac. 783; In re Ah You, 88 Cal. 99, 25 Pac. 974.)

But where the legislature in terms confers upon a municipal corporation the power to pass ordinances of a specified character, an ordinance passed in pursuance thereof cannot be impeached as invalid because it would have been regarded as unreasonable if it had been passed under the incidental powers of the corporation, or under a grant of power general in its nature. But where the power to legislate on a given subject is conferred and the mode of its exercise

is not prescribed, then the ordinance passed in pursuance thereof must be a reasonable exercise of the power, or it will be pronounced void. (Ex parte Chin Yan, 60 Cal. 78.)

When the question as to the unreasonableness of a municipal ordinance is in doubt, the ordinance will be upheld; but when the ordinance is clearly unreasonable, it will be held void. (Ex parte McKenna, 126 Cal. 429, 58 Pac. 916.)

The question of the reasonableness of an ordinance is to be determined by the court from the ordinance, and not by the jury from evidence of facts not appearing upon the face of the ordinance. (Merced County v. Fleming, 111 Cal. 46, 43 Pac. 392.)

An ordinance may be reasonable as applied to the regulation of cemeteries within a city or town, which would be unreasonable if applied to all parts of a county thinly populated in many of its parts. (Los Angeles v. Hollywood Cem. Assn., 124 Cal. 344, 57 Pac. 153.)

An ordinance imposing a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars and imprisonment not exceeding six months, for uttering profane and abusive language in the presence of other persons, is not unreasonable. (McDonald v. Taylor, 89 Cal. 42, 26 Pac. 595.)

A city ordinance prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons by any person other than public officers and travelers, without a permit of the police commissioners, and prescribing a fine of not less than two hundred and fifty and not exceeding five hundred dollars, or imprisonment not less than three and not exceeding six months, or both, does not impose any excessive or unreasonable penalty. (Ex parte Cheney, 90 Cal. 617, 27 Pac. 436.)

An ordinance making a violation thereof punishable by imprisonment for ten days and a fine of one hundred and fifty dollars, and imprisonment in case of nonpayment of the fine at the rate of two dollars a day, is not unreasonable. (Ex parte Green, 94 Cal. 387, 29 Pac. 783.)

A municipal ordinance permitting a fine of not less than twenty and not more than one thousand dollars for visiting a house of ill-fame is unreasonable, and

not in harmony with the general law. (In re Ah You, 88 Cal. 99, 25 Pac. 974.)

Valid ordinances.-In accordance with the foregoing general principles, the following ordinances have been held valid as police and sanitary measures: An ordinance for the removal of shade trees growing in the sidewalks of public streets (Vanderhurst v. Tholcke, 113 Cal. 147, 45 Pac. 266); an ordinance providing for a sewer farm outside of a city (McBean v. Fresno, 112 Cal. 159, 44 Pac. 358); an ordinance prohibiting the conducting of any carpet-beating machine within one hundred feet of any church, schoolhouse, residence, or dwelling-house (Ex parte Lacey, 108 Cal. 326, 41 Pac. 411); an ordinance providing for the improvement of the channel and banks of a river passing through the city (De Baker v. Railway Co., 106 Cal. 257, 39 Pac. 610); a city ordinance forbidding the beating of drums in the traveled streets of a city, without the permission of the president of the board of trustees (In re Flaherty, 105 Cal. 558, 38 Pac. 981); an ordinance providing that no liquor license shall be granted to any person who has conducted the business of selling liquors in any place where females are employed (Foster v. Police Commrs., 102 Cal. 483, 37 Pac. 763); an ordinance providing that no license shall be issued to persons engaged in the sale of liquors in dance-cellars or dance-halls, or in places where musical, theatrical, or other public exhibitions are given, and where females attend as waitresses (Ex parte Hayes, 98 Cal. 555, 33 Fac. 337); an ordinance fixing the license for conducting a saloon where females are employed and where intoxicating liquors are sold in less quantities than one quart at a higher rate than a license for conducting a saloon where females are not employed (Ex parte Felchlin, 96 Cal. 360, 31 Pac. 224, approving opinion of McKinstry, J., in Matter of Maguire, 57 Cal. 604); a city ordinance prohibiting the selling of pools on horseraces, except within the inclosure of a racetrack where the race is to be run (Ex parte Tuttle, 91 Cal. 589, 27 Pac. 933); an ordinance making the issuance of a liquor license depend upon the permission of a majority of the police commissioners or the approval of twelve property owners in the

block in which the business is carried on (Ex parte Christensen, 85 Cal. 208, 24 Pac. 747); an act provid ing for the exclusion of all unvaccinated children from the public schools (Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226, 24 Pac. 383); a city ordinance making it unlawful to visit a place for the practice of gambling (Ex parte Lane, 76 Cal. 587, 18 Pac. 677); an ordinance prohibiting the maintenance within the city limits of any tippling-house, dramshop, or barroom, where spirituous liquors are sold or given away (Ex parte Campbell, 74 Cal. 20, 15 Pac. 318); an ordinance which prohibits any person, for the purpose of prostitution, to visit any building kept for the purpose of prostitution (Ex parte Johnson, 73 Cal. 228, 15 Pac. 43); an ordinance prohibiting the alteration or repair of any wooden building within certain designated fire limits, without permission of the fire wardens and approval of a majority of the committee on fire department and the mayor (Ex parte Fiske, 72 Cal. 125, 13 Pac. 310); an ordinance prohibiting the keeping of more than two cows within certain portions of a city (In re Linehan, 72 Cal. 114, 13 Pac. 170); an ordinance prohibiting the carrying on of a public laundry within the city limits, except within prescribed boundaries (In re Hang Kie, 69 Cal. 149, 10 Pac. 327); an ordinance prohibiting the carrying on of a laundry without the consent of the board of supervisors, except in a brick or stone building (In re Yick Wo, 68 Cal. 294, 9 Pac. 139); an ordinance providing that all buildings used as laundries shall be constructed but one story in height, with brick or stone walls, and with metal roofs, doors, and window shutters (Ex parte White, 67 Cal. 102, 7 Pac. 186); a provision of a city charter prohibiting the slaughtering of animals and the maintenance of slaughterhouses within the city (Ex parte Heilbron, 65 Cal. 609, 4 Pac. 648); an ordinance making it unlawful for any person to conduct a laundry within certain limits, without a certificate from the health officer as to its sanitary condition, and a certificate from one of the fire wardens as to the condition of the heating appliances, and forbidding the operation of any laundry between 10 P. M. and 6 A. M., or on Sundays (Ex parte Moynier, 65 Cal. 33, 2 Pac. 728);