Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. PAUL HENDRICKSON, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. HOME BRAND BOTTLING COMPANY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. JINRICKY COMPANY, INC. (a Corporation), Respondent
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1937-05-07
Citations: 20 Cal. App. 2d 748
Docket Number: Civ. No. 11391; Civ. No. 11392; Civ. No. 11393
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. PAUL HENDRICKSON, Respondent. THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. HOME BRAND BOTTLING COMPANY, Respondent. THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. JINRICKY COMPANY, INC. (a Corporation), Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Second Series
Volume: 20
Pages: 748–748

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 11391.
Second Appellate District, Division Two.
May 7, 1937.]
THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. PAUL HENDRICKSON, Respondent. THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. HOME BRAND BOTTLING COMPANY, Respondent. THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. JINRICKY COMPANY, INC. (a Corporation), Respondent.
[Civ. No. 11392.
Second Appellate District, Division Two.
May 7, 1937.]
[Civ. No. 11393.
Second Appellate District, Division Two.
May 7, 1937.]
U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Seibert L. Sefton, Deputy Attorney-General, for Appellant.
Erwin P. Werner and Edward Linder for Respondents.

Opinion:
CRAIL, P. J.
These three cases are similar in the pleadings, except as to names and amounts, and in the judgments rendered, to the case of People v. Tux Winery Co., No. 11351, this day decided (ante, p. 700 [67 Pac. (2d) 752]) by this court. The appeals were taken five weeks later. The parties have now stipulated in writing that these cases may be submitted for decision on the briefs on file in the Tux Winery Company case.
For the reasons stated in the decision in that case, we also affirm the judgments in these eases.
Judgments affirmed.
Wood, J., and McComb, J., concurred.