Dunn

Appellant was tried on an indictment containing three counts. He was acquitted *780 upon the second, and third counts and convicted upon the first count. Appellant contends that the verdicts are inconsistent and seeks a reversal upon that ground. The liquor involved in the three counts is the same, five drinks of whisky and one drink of beer. It is charged in the third count that this liquor was unlawfully sold on the 26th day of June, 1930. In the second count it is charged that this liquor was unlawfully possessed op the 4th day of July, and in the first count that the appellant maintained a common nuisance on the 4th day of July, 1930, at 301 Second street, Eureka, Humboldt county, Cal., in keeping for sale at said place the liquor described in the second and third counts.

Upon the trial appellant testified, and his counsel stipulated, that he was the owner of the place above described. It appears from the evidence that this place was fitted up with a bar in a rear room and another in a ■ cigar store in á front room. The rear room wás hsed as a pool room and was fitted up for the sale of drinks. Appellant testified that the bar in the rear room was equipped with whisky glasses…