Defendant was charged with violating ordinance No. 11190 of the city of Tacoma on the same occasion which gave rise to the prosecution in Tacoma v. Roe, ante p. 444, 68 P. (2d) 1028. It is suggested in the briefs that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. The evidence, in our opinion, was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that all the elements of the offense defined by the ordinance were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment affirmed.