The record-union., 1891-03-06

In People VS.. Banning (4S Cal. 1851, the
court says: Another point made is that
the venue was not proved. No witness
testified in so many words that the kill
ing occurred in the city and county of
San Francisco. But the whole testimony.
taken together, left no room for a reason
sable doubt on this point. We think the
venue sufficiently proved" In that case
the Killing was shown to have been done
on Clay street without any direct evil
| dence that Clay street was in San Fran
cisco; bat it may be claimed that CLAY
street could have been located by refer
ence to other named streets which were
shown to be in the city.
In the State VS.. Burns AS Mo. 43S) the
witness spoke of the murder as taking
place on Mullanphy street, but it was not
expressly stated anywhere that Mullan-
ply street was in the county or city of
st. Louis" and the Supreme Court of
Missouri say: eff there was evidence to
reasonably satisfy the jury that the crime
was committed in the city, that was suf-
ficient. Tho question of venue
or jurisdiction is always question of
lact, and may be proved like any other
fact. Ii the evidence raises violent
presumption that the offense for which
| the person is indicted was committed in
the county where he was tried, it is suf-
ficient. Wharton on Criminal Law,
Section 60l)o
- LIZ llie otttto VS.. fuIn llf MO. Appeal
reports, 226), it was testified that the
stolen property was taken from board
1ng-house, No. 1908 Washington avenue,
and that defendant was seen with it in
shop on Christy avenue, and the court
say: 1T is true that no witness says in
SO many words, that the offense was COM
mltted in the city of ST. Louis. But this
is not necessary. 1t is enough if the
testimony was such as to satisfy the trier
OF the fact that the place of the offense
was that laid in the information" And
speaking of certain cases referred to the
court continues as follows: SIN neither
case could there be any doubt in the
minds of the triers of the fact, or of the
Judges of the appellate court, that the
streets spoken OF by the witnesses were
st. Louis streets. We will not take
judicial notice of all the streets of the city
in which this court holds its sessions.
But we need have no difficulty in Judi
cially recognizing the fact that Washing
ton avenue, Morgan street, and Christy
avenue, are old, established, and we'll
known streets of st. Louis-the city in
which we sit as a court-and that this
knowledge prevails generally throughout
the city, and must have been possessed
by the trier Of fact in the present case"
Bland VS.. People n III. 364l; Beavers
VS.. State (5S Ind. 500, and Comm. VS..
Costley Q1S Mass. 81, are all to the point
that inferential evidence is sufficient to
establish venue.
The foregoing cases are authorities
which fortify the conclusion on this point
which we have above stated. The ques-
ton here is not a strict question of judi
cial knowledge. The question is whether,
under al the circumstances of the case,
there was.sufficient evidence to warrant
the jury in concluding that the crime was
committed in San Francisco, and, as be-
fore said, we think that it was sufficient.
8. We do not think that the evidence
was insufficient to sustain the verdict
upon the merits; nor do we think that
the court abused its discretion in refusing
to grant new trial on the ground of
newly discovered evidence.
The Judgment and order appealed from
are affirmed. MCFARLAND, J.
We concur:
DEHAvEN, j.,
SHARPsTEIN, J.