Appellant filed city council nomination papers stating he resided at a certain address. However, he never slept or held meetings there, or kept personal belongings there, and paid the occupant $250 per month to allow him to receive mail there. He did testified he did conduct political activities in the carport. Appellant claimed the term “residence” had one meaning in the political world (meaning he merely had to spend time there) and another meaning in other applications. The court rejected the argument that a mistake of fact instruction was required for the charge of submitting false nomination papers (Elec. Code, sec. 10228), concluding that appellants mistake was one of law.