delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant was convicted of house-breaking under thе act of 1871, new Code, section 5438. The proof amрly sustains the verdict. Upon his trial below he relied upon the defense of insanity. The court charged the jury, among оther things not excepted to, that the question of the sanity or insanity of the defendant is one of fact to be determined by them, which they would do from all the facts and circumstances of the case. If they should be of opinion from the proof,, that at the time the offense was committed, the defendant had sufficient capacity to know right from wrong, and that he had enough of reason to know that what he was doing was wrong, he would be responsible *
The charge upon this subject we think was substantially correct: Stewart v. The State, 1 Bast., 178. There were several specific instructions upon this subject requested by the dеfendant which we deem it unnecessary to notice furthеr than to say that none of them were correct, еxcept as to such portions of them as are contained in the original charge, and it was not error in the court to refuse them- in the form in which they were presented.
It was shown by the proof that another person wаs present with the defendant engaged in the breaking who had no intention of committing a felony, but this want of intention upon the part of the other person was unknown to the ■ dеfendant, whose object was to rob the safe in the house of money which it was supposed to contain. Thе court instructed the jury
This was correct. All parties present, aiding and abetting, etc., are principals, and the ' purpose or intent of the defendant in breaking and entering the hоuse would determine the guilt as to him, without reference to the secret purpose which . the other party may have had.
We see no error in the record and the judgment must be affirmed.