Colombo

— Defendant was convicted of maintaining a nuisance in violation of the "Wright Act (Stats. 1921, chap. 80, p. 79) and section 21 of the Volstead Act (U. S. Comp. Stats., § 10138%jj). The information as amended charged in part as follows:

Appellant urges that his demurrer to this information should have been sustained in that the place alleged to have been maintained by him is not described therein with sufficient certainty. It is sufficient if the place is designated sufficiently to enable a person of common under standing to know what is intended (Pen. Code, see. 950, subd. 2), and allege the facts in substantial agreement with the language of the statute constituting the offense. (People v. Frankovich, 64 Cal. App. 184, 188 [ 221 Pac. 671 ].) This prosecution does not proceed against the place as for abatement but against the person only, and for that reason an exact desczdption of the place is unnecessary. (State v. Kruse, 19 N. D. 203 [ 124 N. W. 385 ]; State v. Wheeler, 38 N. D. 456 [ 165 N. W. 574 ]; 33 Cor. Jur., sec. 430, p. 717, cases cited in note 99.)

The testimony was to the effect that defendant for several years had conducted a taxi business at a stand in the…