Malone

The defendant was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. He prosecutes this appeal from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The indictment does not state the name of the alleged purchaser, but the evidence shows to whom the sale was made. There is much force in appellant’s argument to the effect that the name of the purchaser should in fairness he alleged in order to enable the defendant to prepare his defense, hut it has been held that such allegation is not necessary. (People v. Faust, 113 Cal. 172 [ 45 Pac. 261 ]; Ex parte Hansen, 158 Cal. 494 [ 111 Pac. 528 ].) While the decisions in other jurisdictions are not uniform, the weight of authority is contrary to appellant’s contention.

It is urged that the court erred in allowing the challenge for cause to the juror La Grave. La Grave stated that he thought the prohibition law is not “a good law, but, being a law, I believe it should be enforced”; that he had no bias or prejudice against its enforcement; that he did not belong to any organization having for its object the repeal of the law,- and that he could “bring in a verdict solely in accordance with” the evidence. The…