The record-union., 1892-07-26
TWO DECISIONS.
Judgments Affirmed by the Supreme
Court.
The Date of the Commission of Crime
Not Material Unless Pleaded
as an Alibi.

The Supreme Court has filed it's deci-
sion in Deputy Clerk Govan's office in
the case of the People VS.. George w.
French (appellant). French was con-
victed in Butte County of the crime of
grand larceny, and appealed from the
judgment and order denying his motion
for new trial. The Supreme Court says:
The court very properly sustained an
objection to the question, When was it
you drove them thereY The interroga-
tory did not refer to the cattle which the
defendant was charged with stealing,
and was wholly irrelevant to the issue
upon trial. The fact that the witness, in
his examination in chief, made state
ments as to the acts of the defendant with
reference to certain other cattle which-as
far as the record discloses were state
ments volunteered by him-does not
give appellant the right to enter into a
crosS-eXamination upon such matters.
The subject matter of the examination
was foreign to the issue, and appellants
remedy was an objection to the questions,
if such were asked; and if the statements
were volunteered, then motion to strike
ont would have subserved all purposes.
The court gave the jury the following in
structons:
The essence of the crime charged in this in
formation is telOniOusly stealing and driving
away the cattle. This is charged to have been
done on or about the goth of November,
1890. You will see that the precise day on
which ii took place is not given. ION or
about are the words of the information; and
instruct you that if you believe from the
evidence in this case, beyond reasonable
doubt and to moral certainty, that the de
fendant stole or aided in stealing the cattle
named in the information, though you may
not believe it was done on the goth day of
November but within n few days within
that time, then your verdict should be guilty.
For the law looks to the crime committed,
and not to the precise day when ii was done,
il done before the filing OF the information
and within reasonable time OF the day
named. This is The law in all cases, except
when time IS OF the essence OF the crime
charged; and. as I said before, time is not of
the essence OF the crime In this case.
appellants defense was an alibi, and
while with argument he attacks the
principle embodied in the foregoing in
struction, no authority is cited in his
support. Two witnesses claiming to be
pdrticepS c9'{Dlt3jS with French in the
commission of the larceny testified that
in company with him they took possess
sion of and drove away the cattle upon
the 18th day of November. Other parties
testified they saw appellant in possession
of the cattle day or two later in al adj
joining county. French'S evidence
tended to show that he was in the town of
Gridley upon the 18th day of November,
town situate several miles distant from
the scene Of the alleged larceny.
Upon this state OF facts the instruction
expressed the law, and we are unable to
see how the giving of it in any manner
infringed upon the rights of the APP
pellant. = \ complete and per-
feet aIibi establishes as fact that party
did not commit the otiense charged, but
II. 81. l. i
case, If it had been sufficiently estab-
lished, would have entirely failed to meet
such requirement Of the law.
For the foregoing reasons the Judgment
and order are affirmed"
The decision was by Garoutte. and
concurred in by Paterson and Harrison.
a SAN JOAQUIN CASE.
The Supreme Court has also filed its
decision in the case of Robert Watt ct al.
Directors of the Stockton State Insane
Asylum (appellants) VS.. Charles Bradley,
administrator of the estate of Paul Brad
ley, deceased.
The action was commenced in the
county of San Joaquin to recover s., 175 80
for medical attention, nursing, support,
ETC., alleged to have been furnished to
the wife of the defendants intestate in
said asylum at the request of said intes-
tate.
On motion of the defendant the court
ordered change of the place oftrial from
the county of San Joaquin to the county
of Santa Barbara, on the alleged ground
that defendant was a resident of the latter
county. The plaintiffs appealed from
this order and contended the affidavit of
defendant upon which the order was
made was insufficient
The copy of the affidavit is given, and
the Supreme Court disserts at some
length upon it, aud concludes by saying:
Nothing is found in any of the cases
cited by counsel opposed to these views,
and the order is confirmed.