Mazzola

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the offense of “maintaining a place where intoxicating liquor was manufactured and kept.”

The prosecution was had under the provisions of the Wright Act (Stats. 1921, p. 79), which in terms adopts the provisions of the National Prohibition Act or the so-called Volstead Act, of date October 28, 1919, and which latter act among other things contains the provision that:

Appellant contends that because it is not alleged in the information that the intoxicating liquor was manufac tured and kept “for beverage purposes” or “for sale, barter or other commercial purposes” the information failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.

In support of such contention appellant relies principally upon the cases of People v. Mehra, 73 Cal. App. 162 [ 238 Pac. 802 ], United States v. Dowling, 278 Fed. 630 , and State v. Bulloch, 151 La. 593 [ 92 South. 127 ]. In the case first cited it is held that evidence of mere possession or “keeping” of intoxicating liquor is insufficient to support a conviction of maintaining a common nuisance as defined in the statute, but that additional evidence of facts or circumstances reasonably…