In Re Pappas

PREWETT, J., pro tem.

This proceeding is identical with case No. 616 (Ex parte Teddy Pappas, ante, p. 432 [207 Pac. 483], save that in this the complaint charges a violation of section 1 of the ordinance in question, while Teddy Pappas was charged with a violation of section 3 thereof. Gust Pappas did not in person initiate this proceeding, but it is found convenient to refer to him as the petitioner. Every point involved herein, except that relating to the mere form of the charge, has been decided in said case No. 616 adversely to his contention.

Section 1 of the ordinance, under which the…