People v. One Pontiac 8 Sedan

SPENCE, Acting P. J.

This proceeding was brought to obtain an order of forfeiture of a certain automobile under the provisions of the State Narcotic Act. (Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act 5323.) Richard McAfee, the registered owner, and Anglo California National Bank, the legal owner, appeared and answered. After a trial by the court, findings were made in favor of plaintiff and from the judgment ordering the forfeiture, the Anglo California National Bank has appealed.

The automobile was purchased by McAfee on a conditional sales contract from Hoppert & Bergesen. Said contract was

[504]

thereafter assigned to said bank. In response to allegations made in the answer of said bank; the trial court found that it was untrue that the conditional sales contract or the interest of the bank was created “after a reasonable investigation of the moral responsibility, character and reputation of the purchaser,' Richard McAfee”. No attack is made upon said finding, and a review of the evidence shows that no such investigation was made.

The briefs herein are devoid of appropriate headings (rule VIII, sec. 2, of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal;

Herlihy

v.

Ward,

129 Cal. App. 434 [18 Pac. (2d) 992];

Lady

v.

Smith,

19 Cal. App. (2d) 167 [65 Pac. (2d) 76]), but it appears to be the bank’s contention that it was not required to prove that such investigation had been made in the absence of a showing by respondent that such an investigation would have developed knowledge of the intended illegal use. We find no merit in ■this contention.

The act (see. 15, subd. e) is entirely clear upon the subject. It provides in part “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