*1 885 trial detrimental remarks at the time of sen- at the made proceedings transcript of oral tencing. The the at the time sentencing support not this assertion. of does judgment is affirmed.
The judgment. in the concurred Schauer, J., participate herein. J., not Spence, did
[333] P.2d 18] 12, In Dec. No. 20056. Bank. 1958.] F. [S. al., Respondents, et DEPARTMENT SILVA v. MANUEL Ap- al., et ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL OF pellants. Wiley Attorney General, and W. Brown,
Edmund G. Deputy Attorney Appellants. for General, Manuel, Stefan, Golden, & N. and Golden Theodore Robert Stefan Respondents. for J. Bruce Fratis appeal judgment from a of the SHENK, This isan J. Superior ordering mandate Court, County, a writ of Alameda dismissing respondent aside an directing the board to set order an appeals department to consider from of the and decisions alleged or application relief an clerical inadvertent for from appeal a of from decisions preparation the of notice error in department. of the Department in question was involved Pesce v. A similar of day p. (ante, 310 Beverage Control, this decided Alcoholic 15]). P.2d [333 sep- department rendered two 18, 1956, the On October first, num- in In the arately file 42022. numbered decisions ordered petitioners’ and beer license was 9560, the wine bered of Alcoholic Bever- 25601 the for of section violation revoked 1166, the license second, numbered age In the Act. Control days 25658 of section suspended for violation for fifteen was Act. The decisions were Beverage of Alcoholic Control the 886 by
mailed to the 18, 1956, licensees on October and received place at them their of business on 19, October No- 1956. On forty-first 28, day 1956, depart- vember the after notice of the ment’s decisions was mailed to the the licensees, licensees de- appeal livered a notice of to the board. The notice that stated appeal an was taken department from the of in decision the *2 proceeding the reg. 4202, numbered “file no. no. 1166.” It appears thus that appeal incorrectly designated the of notice only the file number and proceeding referred to the in which petitioners’ suspended the days. license was for 15 Jan- On uary 16, 1957, the licensees a filed “Correction and Clarifica- Appeal.” They alleged tion of Notice of that their failure to properly identify the file number and to include in the notice appeal of proceeding the number of the in which their license was the typographical revoked was result of error in- and advertence. superior The court ordered the board to set its order aside dismissing appeals the proceedings; in both to hear and de- suspension
termine the in order number 1166 on merits; its application to hear and determine the for relief from the alleged omitting in inadvertence cap- number 9560 from the appeal, tion of the notice of and to appeal hear that on the granted. if merits such relief be ground on The dismissal was based the that the of notice appeal forty day period prescribed was not within filed the by of section 23081 the and Business Professions Code. The period prescribed by that the licensees contend that section appeal taking department an from a for decision of the is sub provisions ject the of of to section 1013 the Code of Civil department’s the reason that Procedure for the notice of the upon by mail, them decision was served and extended, as the appeal timely. Department of was In notice Pesce v. Alco of Beverage Control, supra, it was holic held that those sections together. such a should be read Under construction the notice provided given by within time herein was the law. judgment is The affirmed. Schauer, J., Spence, J.,
Carter, J., McComb, and J., con- curred. Traynor, J.,
Gibson, J., C. and dissented. Appellants’ petition rehearing January for a 7, was denied Gibson, J., Traynor, opinion of J., C. and were the 1959. petition granted. that the should be