In Re Pappas

Teddy Pappas was convicted in a justice’s court of the crime of violating Ordinance No. 72 of the county of Yolo. He will be referred to in this opinion as the petitioner.

The operative portions of the complaint against him read as follows: “did then and there willfully and unlawfully keep, conduct and establish a place where alcoholic liquors were sold, served and distributed and were kept for the purpose of sale and distribution, and the place not Toeing then and there a licensed place of lousiness as provided in Ordinance No. 72 of said County of Yolo. ...”

The italics are ours. The chief point urged in behalf of petitioner is that he is charged with conducting a place of business where alcoholic liquors are sold without first procuring the necessary license. Much of the argument and many of the authorities on the part of petitioner are directed to this point; but it is sufficient to say that he is not charged in the complaint with conducting the place of business in question without procuring the necessary license so to do. He is charged merely with conducting it in a place other them a licensed place.

To appreciate fully the import of the charge as laid in the complaint it…