Blackenburg

The appellant above named was tried and convicted in the superior court of the county of Lassen of the crime of unlawfully selling liquor, in violation of the Wright Act (Stats. 1921, p. 79). His motion for a new trial having been denied, he appeals from that order and from the judgment entered against him in this cause.

There is sufficient testimony shown in the transcript, if believed by the jury, to fill all the requirements of the law showing guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only point relied upon by the appellant is an alleged error of the trial court in the denial of the appellant’s motion to strike out certain testimony. In relation to the error assigned, the transcript shows the following (testimony of F. W. Morrison): “Q. By Mr. Nutting: Did you know the defendant when you went there on the 14th day of May? A. Yes, sir. Q. How did you know him? A. I had been there previously and had been served with liquor and buying liquor and buying a bottle. By Mr. Barry: Move to strike out the answer on the ground it is incompetent and improper. By the Court: Deny the motion.”

The appellant bases his reliance upon two cases, to wit: People v. Clark, 28 Cal.…