Legal Opinion
People v. Sinicrope
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California
Decided March 21, 1930No. Cr. A. No. 275; Cr. A. No. 279; Cr. A. No. 294PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBishop, J.
Recently we were called upon to hold (People v. Ruddick, 107 Cal. App. (Supp.) 785 [1 Cal. Supp. 32, 288 Pac. 45]), that by the Wright Act the mere possession of intoxicating liquor fit for beverage purposes was made a public offense, except as possession was authorized by the act under certain circumstances. In the three cases now before us the defendants contend that their possession was authorized, each relying upon that portion of section 29, title 2, of the National Prohibition Act as adopted by the Wright Act, which reads as follows:
“The penalties provided in this act against the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hodge v. McCallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Smith v. RheinstromCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1895
- People v. RuddickCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
3Cited by5 opinions
- United States v. BrunettDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1931
- Montgomery v. Board of Administration, Etc.California Court of Appeal · 1939
- Border Brokerage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Customs Court · 1970
- In re Search Warrant Affecting No. 277 Fifth Ave.District Court, S.D. New York · 1932
- Montgomery v. Board of Administration, Etc.California Court of Appeal · 1939