People v. One Ford V8 Coach

KNIGHT, J.

—The state instituted this proceeding for the forfeiture of a Ford automobile, seized in San Jose by the division of narcotic enforcement, while it was being used unlawfully to transport narcotics. (Stats. 1935, p. 2203.) The registered owner of the vehicle, named Dixon, did not appear, but the Universal Credit Company, assignee of the legal owner, filed a verified answer setting up a lien created by a conditional sales contract under which the vehicle was purchased. At the conclusion of the hearing the court made findings and entered judgment for the forfeiture of said vehicle, subject, however, to the lien of the Universal Credit Company for the unpaid balance of the purchase price, amounting to $437. From said judgment the state appeals.

Subdivisions (e) and (f) of section 15 of said narcotic act provide that “the claimant of any right, title, or interest in said automobile or other vehicle may prove his lien, mortgage, or conditional sales contract to be

bona fide

and that such right, title or interest was created after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser and without any knowledge that the automobile or other vehicle was being, or was to be, used for the purpose charged”, whereupon the state’s right of forfeiture shall be subject to such lien, etc.

In the present proceeding respondent’s counsel stipulated that at the time of the seizure the ear was being used in violation of said act; and counsel for the state stipulated that respondent’s conditional sales contract was

bona fide

and that at no time did respondent have any knowledge that said car was to be used for any unlawful purpose. There remained then for determination the single issue of whether respondent complied with that provision of the narcotic act

[447]

requiring a reasonable investigation to be made of the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser.

In this regard the record shows that respondent’s counsel presented and read to the court the report of an investigation respondent caused to be made through the Dun & Bradstreet agency as to Dixon’s moral responsibility, character and reputation. The state makes no claim that the investigation so conducted did not constitute a compliance with the statutory requirement, but it contends that the written report thereof and the circumstances attending the making of the same may not be considered on this appeal as evidence supporting the trial court’s affirmative finding on this issue because said written report was not actually introduced in evidence nor was any testimony under oath given in connection therewith.