People v. Gray

CURTIS, J.

The defendant was charged by information with a violation of the Wright Act (Stats. 1921, p. 79), so called, and a prior conviction thereof. He was found guilty as charged in the information and sentenced to impHsonment in the county jail for the period of nine months. On appeal to this court he attacks the judgment upon two grounds: First, that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict; second, that the court exceeded its authority in imposing upon him the sentence of nine months’ imprisonment in the county jail.

[551]

In contending that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, the appellant specifies three particulars in which he claims that the evidence is lacking. They are that the liquor which the evidence shows was sold by the defendant was not shown to have been fit for beverage purposes, nor was it shown to have been intoxicating, and that, to use the expression employed by appellant’s counsel in his brief, “the integrity of the evidence is not good.” The evidence introduced on behalf of the prosecution was to the effect that one McMillan bought from the defendant two pint bottles of whisky, paying him for the same the sum of five dollars. McMillan, the evidence shows, went to the defendant’s car and asked the defendant for whisky, and upon this request being made to him the defendant produced the two pint bottles and delivered them to McMillan. One of these bottles of liquor was consumed shortly after its purchase, and McMillan, after tasting the contents of the second bottle, turned it over to the district attorney’s office of Los Angeles County on the following day. McMillan testified that the bottle, the contents of which he tasted, contained whisky. A Mr. Langdon, another witness, testified regarding the purchase of the liquor substantially as did the witness McMillan. He further testified that he tasted the contents of each of the two bottles of liquor sold by the defendant and that the contents of each bottle was whisky. This evidence completely answers the two objections made by the appellant to the effect that the evidence failed to show that the liquor sold was fit for beverage purposes and that it failed to show that the liquor was intoxicating. In

People

v.

Mueller,