Lamb

The defendant was tried and convicted of the offense of violating wfiiat is commonly known as the Wright Act of the state of California. His motion for a new trial being denied, the defendant appeals therefrom and also from the judgment of conviction. It appears from the transcript that three separate and distinct informations were filed against the defendant charging him with three separate and distinct violations of the act above mentioned. The informations were numbered respectively 8056, 8060 and 8083. By stipulation made in open court when the eases were called for trial, all three eases were tried at the same time and upon the testimony introduced at one trial. The defendant was acquitted of t'he offenses charged under the informations numbered 8056 and 8083, but was convicted of the offense charged in the information numbered 8060.

Two points are made for reversal: First, that the verdict is not supported by the evidence; second, that the court had no jurisdiction to pronounce judgment of imprisonment in the county jail. In support of t'he appellant’s contention, that the judgment is not supported by the evidence or rather that the judgment is against the evidence, our…