Appellant was accused by information filed by the district attorney of Kings County of the crime of possession of a still used in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor. Following his conviction by a jury he filed motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. He now appeals from the orders of the court denying these mоtions and from the judgment.
Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict and that the
corpus delicti
was not proved. These contentions may be considered together. By the evidence presented by the prosecution it was established that defendant was arrested in the night-time when he was the sole occupant of a house near the city of Hanford, in which there was, according to the testimony of the arresting officеr, “one complete still; 39 quarts of ‘jackass’; about 15 empty sacks—just a minute; about 15 sacks of empty bottles; two bottlers, or rather, cappеrs, two machines for putting caps on bottles; two funnels, one glass, that is, one glass funnel, I mean; one full barrel of Egyptian corn, rye and sugar mash; two barrels partly filled; one barrel filled with water; one 10 gallon earthen jar; one 15 gallon earthen jar; one one gallon glass jug. When the officers aрproached the house a light was burning, but the light was extinguished as
*301
soon as the officers drove up. The front door was locked. A new padlock, which was on the outside of the back door on the day before the visit of the officers, had been removed, but the door was locked from the inside. The dеfendant had been in the house on the occasion of a previous visit by the officers. "Upon their arrival on the occasion of the arrеst the officers announced who they were and what their business was, and called out to anybody who might be in the house to open the door. There bеing no response to this request the officers tried to open the back door with a pass-key, but failed, and finally “pinched it open with a jimmy.” In the housе they found the defendant standing in the dark facing away from the back door. George P. Bohlken, a chemist, testified that five bottles or jars of liquor which he took from the thirty-nine different containers indiscriminately were intoxicating liquor containing from forty to forty-five per cent of alcohol by volume. He also testified that the still introduced in evidence contained all the essential elements of an apparatus for distilling intoxicating liquors. Counsel for appellant argues that the facts shown are consistent with the innocence of the accused. If this be conceded, it does not necеssarily follow that the facts are insufficient to support the verdict. In
People
v.
Martinez,
The sheriff being disqualified, the county coroner by order of the court summoned jurors to serve at the trial. Defendant presented a motion for the discharge of the entire panel upon the ground that the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the coroner and Clarence H. Wilson, the deputy district attorney who prosecuted the case. The ruling of the court denying this motion was not erroneous. Section 1064 of the Penal Code provides that “when the
*302
panel is formed from persons whose names are not drawn as jurors, a challenge may be taken to the panel on account of any bias of the officer who summons them, which would be good ground of challenge to a juror.” Seсtion 1074 of the same code provides that a juror may be challenged if he stands in the relation of landlord and tenant with the defendant or persоn alleged to be injured by the offense charged, or on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted. No provision is made for a challеnge for implied bias based upon a relationship with an attorney for a party. See order denying a hearing by the supreme court in
People
v.
Conte,
Appellаnt contends that the trial court should have granted his motion to set aside the information on the ground that the defendant had not been legally committеd by a magistrate, asserting that there was no evidence adduced at the preliminary examination to warrant the commitment for trial in the superiоr court. It was held in
People
v.
Creeks,
George P. Bohlken, after qualifying as an expert, was allowed over the objection of the defendant to state his opinion to the effect that the apparatus introduced in evidence (the still) would produce intoxicating liquor. The ruling was corrеct. In 10 California Jurisprudence, 959, we find this statement: “There are two classes of eases in which expert testimony is admissible. To one class belong thоse eases in which the conclusions to be drawn by the jury depend on the existence of facts which are not common knowledge and which are peculiarly within the knowledge of men whose experience and study enables them to speak with authority upon.” The court was justified in holding that our сitizenship does not have common knowledge of the workings of a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor.
After a large part of the evidence had been received defendant moved the court to strike out the testimony admitted on the ground that, as alleged, the court had no jurisdiction, it аppearing from the clerk’s filing marks that
*303
the information had been filed seventeen days after the commitment by the magistrate. The court properly denied the motion. The legislature of 1927 [Stats. 1927, p. 1045], amended section 809 of the Penal Code by providing that it shall be the duty of the district attorney to file an infоrmation within fifteen days after the commitment instead of thirty days, the time fixed before the amendment. The legislature did not, however, amend section 1382, which рrovides that the court must “unless good cause to the contrary is shown,” order the dismissal of a prosecution if" an information is not filed within
thirty
days. Moreover, the motion was not seasonably or properly made. In cases where dismissals would be proper under this provision of the code, motions for such action by the court should be made before trial.
(People
v.
Newell,
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the defendant neеd not be a witness in his own behalf and that his failure to be a witness should not be considered against him. The record discloses that no request was made for thеse instructions. It is well settled that defendant cannot complain before the reviewing court of the failure of the trial court to give the instructions rеferred to if no request was made at the trial.
(People
v.
Flynn,
The judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed. The appeal from the order denying a motion in arrest of judgment is dismissed.
Conrey, P. J., and Houser, J., concurred.