We see no merit to this contention. ( People v. Hinkle, 64 Cal.App. 375 [ 221 P. 693]; People v. Miller, 67 Cal.App.2d 382, 385 [ 154 P.2d 435]; People v. Tucker, 88 Cal.App.2d 333, 339 [ 198 P.2d 941].) The evidence, including the testimony of the expert, leaves but little doubt, if any, that the room was being occupied by someone for such purpose.

Admitting that the witness was qualified as an expert on bookmaking activities in Los Angeles County, defendant maintains that he was not qualified to testify as an expert on the same matters in Ventura County. [1] From a review of the cases involving the matter here in question, including People v. Newman, 24 Cal.2d 168, 174, 176 [ 148 P.2d 4, 152 A.L.R. 365]; People v. Miller, 67 Cal.App.2d 382, 385 [ 154 P.2d 435]; People v. Klein, 71 Cal.App.2d 588, 591 [ 163 P.2d 71]; People v. Hinkle, 64 Cal.App. 375, 378 [ 221 P. 693]; People v. Hatfield, 77 Cal.App. 212, 218 [ 246 P. 95]; and People v. Derrick, 85 Cal.App. 406, 408 [ 259 P. 481], it is at once manifest that the qualifications of an expert witness on bookmaking matters depend upon long experience in cases of that character, a study of race track gambling and its modus operandi as carried on at race tracks and in the haunts of bookmakers ( People v. Hinkle, supra, p. 378). We know of no rule requiring that an expert witness on bookmaking matters be compelled to establish a familiarity with such practices within the county wherein he is testifying.