Barbara W. KARRELL, doing business as Builders Investment Company, Respondent, v. D. D. WATSON, as Real Estate Commissioner of the State of California, Appellant.
On petition for rehearing respondent's main argument is that the facts of Manning v. Watson, 108 Cal.App.2d 705, 239 P.2d 688, are not distinguishable from those at bar. The Manning accusation alleged only a conviction of certain sections of the United States Code, 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 697, 715, while the commissioner attempted to prove specific acts of a fraudulent and dishonest character.
In the instant case the accusation contained the essential allegations absent from the Manning complaint, to wit, the nature and elements of the deeds for which Miss Karrell had been convicted,—a crime which patently constituted dishonesty, untruthfulness and moral turpitude, and stigmatized respondent with a bad reputation. The theory of the commissioner herein was that it was necessary to prove only the conviction of the crime and that its nature involved dishonest or fraudulent acts. The cases, therefore, are not in conflict.
It is to be observed, also, that Manning made restitution of his perfidious profits and thereby displayed his respect for the law, if not a true penitence for his crimes.
McCOMB, J., dissents. Hearing denied; CARTER and SCHAUER, JJ., dissenting.