Spagnoli

The defendant was convicted of the violation of a county ordinance, commonly known as the “Little Volstead Act,” and he appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial. The charging part of the information is as follows:

A large part of the brief of appellant is devoted to a learned discussion of the action of the trial court in denying his motion to order the return to him of the appliances for the manufacture of liquor and the liquor itself, which were taken from his possession under a search-warrant, and in permitting these objects to be introduced in evidence. It is claimed with substantial reason that the proceedings which resulted in the seizure of the property were not in accordance with the requirements of the statute, and a formidable array of authorities is presented to the effect that what is thus obtained should not be received in evidence. We are, however, spared the duty of following the argument since the question has been unequivocally decided against appellant’s contention by the supreme court of this state in People v. Mayen, 188 Cal. 237 [24 A. L. R. 1383, 205 Pac. 435 ]. Therein it was squarely held that where competent evidence is…