In re Wong Hane

Citations

• 108 Cal. 680
• 41 P. 693
• 1895 Cal. LEXIS 903

Syllabus

<p>Municipal Ordinance—Possession of Lottery Ticket—Presumption of Guilt—Constitutional Law.—A municipal ordinance declaring it unlawful for any person to have in his possession any lottery ticket unless it be shown that such possession is innocent or for a lawful purpose, assumes to overthrow the presumption of innocence, and to put upon the defendant the burden of showing that such possession was lawful or innocent; and such ordinance is a violation of constitutional rights and is invalid.</p> <p>Id.—Construction of Ordinance—Proof of Criminal Intent—Test of Ordinance—Definition of Offense.—The clause of the ordinance declaring that the offense exists, unless it be shown that the possession of the lottery ticket was innocent or for a lawful purpose, cannot be disregarded, nor can the prosecution prove the criminal intent of the defendant, or show that his possession was not innocent or for a lawful purpose; but the ordinance is to be tested by its own terms, and the ■qualification is attached to the definition of the offense, and is of necessity required to be established by the defendant.</p> <p>Id.—Inseparable Provision.—No effect can be given to the ordinance by disregarding the qualifying clause; but the provisions of the ordinance are to be considered as a whole, and it cannot be assumed that the city council would have adopted the first clause of the ordinance without enacting the condition thereto, and the clauses must be regarded as inseparable, and not as independent.</p>