In Re Pappas

This proceeding is identical with case No. 616 (Ex parte Teddy Pappas, ante, p. 432 [ 207 Pac. 483 ], save that in this the complaint charges a violation of section 1 of the ordinance in question, while Teddy Pappas was charged with a violation of section 3 thereof. Gust Pappas did not in person initiate this proceeding, but it is found convenient to refer to him as the petitioner. Every point involved herein, except that relating to the mere form of the charge, has been decided in said case No. 616 adversely to his contention.

Section 1 of the ordinance, under which the charge is laid, reads as follows:

The complaint against the petitioner, the material portions of which we quote, does not contain the subdivisions into paragraphs. These are here designated by numbers for convenience in reference. Said material portions read as fol lows: “did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, furnish, distribute, deliver and give away alcoholic liquors within the limits of said Yolo County and “(1) The said place where the defendant sold, furnished, distributed, delivered and gave away said alcoholic liquors then and there not being a fixed place of business designated in Ordinance…