Walker

Walker v. United States

Good Law
7 F.2d 309·1925 U.S. App. LEXIS 3534
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 3, 1925No. 4533California668 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hunt, J.

(after, stating the facts as above). It is contended that neither count charges a public offense, for the reason that count 1 is “indefinite as to the time "and place and as to the party charged,” and that count 2 does not state any place that was maintained by plaintiff in error for the purpose of manfaeturing intoxicating liquor. The contentions have no merit. In count 1 Walker is named, the date is averred, and the premises are definitely described. The second count direetiy charges that Walker, at 826 Sonoma street, Vallejo, in Solano county, manufactured on *311 the premises 30 gallons of jackass brandy, containing one-half of 1 per cent, or more of alcohol fit for use for beverage purposes.

There is a discrepancy in the descriptions of the county in which Vallejo is situated. In the first count it is described as in Sonoma county, Cal., and in the second it is described as in Solano county, Cal. But, as the evidence was that the premises described are in Vallejo, and that Vallejo is in Solano county, the misdescription in the possession count could not have prejudiced defendant.

When the trial began there was only count 1, that charging possession. After the prosecution…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.