established prior or subse

  
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: #0066ff; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt" lang="EN-US">established prior or subse<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="COLOR: #0066ff; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt" lang="EN-US">quent to the passage of the ordinance, within a <a href="http://www.ralphlaurensoutlet-online.com/"><strong>Ralph Lauren</strong></a> described district or portion of the city of Los Angeles. A violation of any of the provisions of the ordinance was declared to be a misdemeanor. The district to which the prohibition was applied contains about three square miles. The petitioner Is the owner of a tract of land containing eight acres, more or less, within the district described in the ordinance. He acquired his land in 1902, before the territory to which the ordinance was directed had been annexed to the city of Los Angeles. His land contains valuable deposits of clay suitable for the manufacture of brick, and he has, during the entire period of his ownership, used the land for briekmaklng, and has erected thereon kilns, machinery, and buildings necessary for such manufacture. The land, as he alleges, Is far more valuable for briekmaklng than for any other purpose.1,<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" tcsc="0" numbertype="1" negative="False" hasspace="True" sourcevalue="2" unitname="in">2 In</st1:chmetcnv> view of the recent decisions of this court in Ex parte Quong Wo, 161 Cal. 220, 118 Pac. 714, and Ex parte Montgomery, 163 Cal. 457, 125 Pac. 1070, It cannot be necessary to enlarge upon the general questionof the right of a municipal legislature to enact ordinances like the one before us. There can be no question, says the court in Ex parte Quong Wo, that the power to regulate the carrying on of certain lawful occupations in a city includes the power to confine the carrying on of the same to certain limits, whenever such restrictions may reasonably be found necessary to subserve the ends for which the police power exists, viz., to protect the public health, morals, safety, and comfort It is, of course, primarily for the legislative body clothed with this power to determine when such regulations are essential, and its determination In this regard, in view of its better knowledge of <a href="http://www.ralphlaurensoutlet-online.com/"><strong>Cheap Ralph Lauren</strong></a> all the circumstances and the presumption that it is acting with a due regard for the rights of all parties, will not be disturbed in the courts, unless It can plainly be seen that the regulation has no relation to the ends above stated, but is a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation. And these views are supported by a multitude of decisions, some of which are cited in the opinion from which we have quoted.In the Quong Wo Case, the business of a public laundry was held to be of such a nature that It may be confined, in the lawful exercise of the police power, within defined limits In a city or town. The same rule was applied in Ex parte Montgomery to a lumber yard.3 It is not to be doubted that establishments for the burning of <a href="http://www.ralphlaurensoutlet-online.com/"><strong>Ralph Lauren Outlet</strong></a> brick fall equally within the class of occupations which may properly lie regulated by restricting the location In which they may be followed. It Is immaterial to the particular point under discussion that the conduct of a brickyard is not a nuisance per se. The police power granted by the Constitution is http://www.ralphlaurensoutlet-online.com not restricted to the suppression of nuisances. It includes the regulation of the conduct of business, or the use of property, to the end that the public health or morals may not be impaired or endangered. Laurel Hill Cemetery v. City and County, 152 Cal. 464, 474, 93 Pac. 70, 73, <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" tcsc="0" numbertype="1" negative="False" hasspace="True" sourcevalue="27" unitname="l">27 L</st1:chmetcnv>. R. A. N. S. 200, 14 Ann. Cas. 1080; Ex parte Lacey, 10S Cal. 326, 41 Pac. 411, <st1:chmetcnv w:st="on" tcsc="0" numbertype="1" negative="False" hasspace="True" sourcevalue="38" unitname="l">38 L</st1:chmetcnv> R. A. 640, 49 Am. St Rep. 93; Odd Fellows' Cem. Ass'n v. City and County, 140 Cal. 226, 73 Pac. 987; Ex parte Quong Wo, supra. The burning of brick Is a trade which may, when conducted in close <a href="http://www.ralphlaurensoutlet-online.com/"><strong>Cheap Ralph Lauren Polo</strong></a> proximity to dwelling houses, be so offensive to those residing In the vicinity as to constitute a nuisance. Campbell v. Seaman, 63 N. Y. 568, 20 Am. Rep. 567, and cases cited; Powell v. Brockfield P. B. Co., 104 Mo. App. 713, 78 S. W. 648; 29 Cyc. 1168. This is true of all trades which, in their operation, Involve the discharge of smoke or offensive odors into the surrounding atmosphera Catlin v. Valentine, 9 Paige N. Y. 575, 38 Am. Dec. 567; Davis v. Lambertson, 56 Barb. N. Y. 480; Whitney v. Bartholomew, 21 Conn. 213; Cooper v. Randall, 53 111. 24. The plaintiff's business, </span><span style="BACKGROUND: white; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.5pt" lang="EN-US">9<o:p></o:p></span></p>