Brown

The defendant was charged by an information with the possession of a preparation of morphine containing more than one-fourth grain of morphine to the avoirdupois ounce, and by a second count with the forgery of a prescription by which the preparation was obtained. He was convicted under both counts and sentenced as required by law. He then made a motion to annul, vacate and set aside the judgment, which motion was denied. He prosecutes this appeal from the order denying his motion.

The contentions made by the appellant here are the same as those advanced in support of his motion and may be stated as follows:

It is immediately apparent that the first three arguments may, 'for the purpose of our consideration, be grouped together. A portion of section 7 of “An act to regulate the sale and use of poisons in the state of California and providing a penalty for the violation thereof” (DBering’s Con-sol. Supp. 1925-27 to Codes and General Laws, p. 1722, Act 5994) reads as follows: “Any person who shall forge or alter any prescription for any narcotic drugs specified in section 8 of this act or who obtains any such drugs by any forged or altered prescription or who has in possession any…