THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FRANK LAMBLE, Appellant

[Crim. No. 866. Third Appellate District. October 14, 1925.] THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. FRANK LAMBLE, Appellant. Criminal Law—Intoxicating Liquors — Nuisances.—Judgment reversed upon the authority of People v. Mehra, 73 Cal. App. 162. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County and from an order denying a new trial. Charles 0. Busiek, Judge. Reversed. The questions presented are identical with those considered in People v. Mehra, 73 Cal. App. 162. Hale Day and George E. Foote for Appellant. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent. [MAJORITY — FINCH, P. J.] FINCH, P. J. The defendant was charged with and convicted of maintaining a common nuisance in a certain building, “in that the said defendant did then and there wilfully and unlawfully possess and keep on the premises aforesaid certain intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, and not for sacramental or medicinal purposes.” This appeal is from the judgment and the order denying a new trial. The questions presented by the appeal are identical with those considered by this court in People v. Mehra, 73 Cal. App. 162 [238 Pac. 802], in which case the judgment was reversed and the defendant discharged, and in which respondent’s petition for a hearing in the supreme court was denied. The information is in the same language as that in the Mehra case. The instructions are the same and the evidence shows mere possession of the liquor in the defendant’s residence. The defendant, prior to the trial herein, had been convicted and punished for such possession. No brief has been filed by the respondent and the case is not distinguishable in any respect from the Mehra case. It would serve no useful purpose, therefore, to repeat the discussion fully set forth in that case, and no reason appears why the decision therein should not be followed in this. The judgment is reversed and defendant’s bail is exonerated. Hart, J., and Plummer, J., concurred.