Merritt

The petition for rehearing is denied.

We do not think the case, as stated in the opinion of the district court of appeal, required any discussion or statement of the effect of the recently adopted section iy2 of article VI of the constitution. The errors complained of, as stated by that court in its opinion, were not of a character to work substantial injury, and they would not have required a reversal under section 1258 of the Penal Code nor under the rules of this court established long prior to the adoption of said section of the constitution. We express no opinion as to that part of the opinion referring to said amendment.

This is an appeal from a judgment and order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. Defendant also, in form, took an appeal from the order of the court denying his motion in arrest of judgment. Such order is not appeal-able (Pen. Code, sec. 1237), but may be reviewed upon the appeal from the judgment.

The defendant was charged with violating the provisions of an act of the legislature of this state, 'approved March 22, 1905, entitled “An act to amend an act entitled ‘An act to protect stockholders and persons dealing with corporations in-this state, ’ approved March 29, 1878, and all acts amendatory thereof, and to repeal all acts in conflict therewith.”

The act (of 1905) consists of two sections as follows:

It is claimed that the statute is void in that the subject thereof is not sufficiently indicated in the title (Const., sec. 24, art. IY) in that the body of the act is wholly penal in its provisions, which it is urged are not germane to the subject of protecting stockholders and persons dealing with corporations.

If the statute is invalid for the reason assigned, the information drawn under the same states no offense, and the court should have granted the motion in…

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 60 This is an appeal from a judgment and order denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Defendant also, in form, took an appeal from the order of the court denying his motion in arrest of judgment. Such order is not appealable (Pen. Code, sec. 1237), but may be reviewed upon the appeal from the judgment. The defendant was charged with violating the provisions of an act of the legislature of this state, approved March 22, 1905, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to protect stockholders and persons dealing with corporations in this state,' approved March 29, 1878, and all acts amendatory thereof, and to repeal all acts in conflict therewith." The act (of 1905) consists of two sections as follows: "Section 1. Any superintendent, director, secretary, manager, agent or other officer, of any corporation formed or existing under the laws of this state, or transacting business in *Page 61 the same, and any person pretending or holding himself out as such superintendent, director, secretary, manager or other officer, who shall…