93 Cal. 536 | Cal. | 1892
The defendants were convicted of burglary in the first degree, and appeal from the judgment, and an order denying a new trial. There are a great many points formally made in the bill of exceptions, and merely alluded to in appellants’ brief, which it would serve no valuable purpose to notice in detail. We see no material error of law committed by the trial court; and the real question in the case is, whether this court should grant a new trial because the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.
There was evidence showing, or tending to show, among other things, that early on the morning after the burglary, footsteps were traced from the barber-shop burglarized to a vacant building near by, in which the defendants were found apparently asleep; that goods taken from the barber-shop were found concealed under
There was no error in the instructions given by the court on its own motion, or at the reqnest of the prosecution; and all the instructions asked by defendants were allowed.
The defendants introduced a part of the written testimony of the witness James Wilson which had been taken at the preliminary examination; and it was not error for the court to allow the prosecution to introduce a preceding part of that testimony, as it was substantially upon the same subject, and explanatory and illustrative of the part introduced by the defendants.
The point sought to be made as to the cross-examination of defendants’ witness Henry Arthur does not properly appear in the record.
There are no other points which need special notice.
Judgment and order denying a new trial affirmed»
Harrison, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.