People v. One Lincoln Eight, Etc.

KNIGHT, J.

The State appeals from an adverse judgment entered in the present proceeding which the State instituted under the State Narcotic Act for the forfeiture of the automobile above described.

The act provides among other things that “any automobile or other vehicle used to convey, carry or transport any of the drugs mentioned in section 1 of this act . . . shall be forfeited to the state of California as in this section provided’’; also that in a proceeding instituted for the forfeiture of a vehicle so used, the claimant of any right, title or interest therein may file an answer and prove his lien, mortgage or conditional sales contract to be

bona fide

and that such right, title or interest was created after reasonable investigation of the responsibility, character and reputation of the offender and without any knowledge that the vehicle was being or was to be used for the illegal transportation of

[624]

drugs, in which event he shall be entitled to the release of said automobile provided the amount due him is equal to or in excess of the value of the automobile. (Sec. 15, State Narcotic Act, as amended in 1933, Stats. 1933, p. 781.)

The automobile in question was seized by state officers on a street in San Francisco while it was being driven by Henry Uhrig, the conditional sales vendee thereof. He failed to appear in the proceeding, but the conditional sales vendors, Taggart & Dolan, filed an answer setting forth their interest in said vehicle and alleging among other things that they "made investigation as to the responsibility, character and reputation” of Uhrig, and that they had no knowledge that said automobile was being, or was to be used, for the illegal transportation of drugs.

The trial court found, first, that said automobile was not used in the unlawful transportation of narcotics; and secondly, that the claimants had complied with the statutory requirements above mentioned in making reasonable investigation of the responsibility, character and reputation of Uhrig. Judgment was entered accordingly, releasing the automobile to them. As ground for reversal the State contends that said findings are wholly contrary to the admitted facts of the case. In our opinion the State’s contention must be sustained.