Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1912-03-17


 between principals in the first anu second degree is abolished" (which is the ease in Arkansasl an iudici- mem of a principal in the second de gree need not aver any facts other than chose requisite to an indictment of the principal in the firs, degree
 Cyc. Of Law X Pro, Vol. 22 D, 3Go
 Information Sufficient
 In Colorado an information filed by the prosecuting attorney taIes the place of an indictment. In q recent case thg. Supreme Court of thas state said
 "The criticism of the manner in which the offense is charged in tho information, i'll that it charges all of the defendants IS principals, is answered by section 11GS of Mills Annotated Stasutes, which expressly provides that an accessory during the fact shall be deemed and con sidered as q principal, and punished l People, 122 III. 101, 12 N. E. H65 and 17 x. E. sos, a similar statuso was under idera'.ion, and in answer to the objection here urged, the court says: This statute abolish es the distinction between accessories before the fact and principals. By it, all acces smies before the fact are made principals. As the acts of the principal are thus made the acis Of the accessory, the latter may Dc charged with having done 'he acts himself, and may be indicted and punished accordingly" The evidence was sufficient to show a concerted action between Holt, Romero, and the plaintiff ill 9lwor. which would constitute chem principals in the commission of the offense under the foregoing provisions, and was clear ly sufficient, in our opinion, to sho" that, while attempting to carry ou, common purpose to commit a rob bery, the homicide was committed: and the jury were warranted in find ing each guilty of murder in thcs | first degree"
 Noble V People, 45 Pac. Rep. 373. To the same effect, see
 Drury V. Territory of Oklahoma, 60 Pac. Rep. 1O1.
 From these authorities and the nus merous cases cited by them, will be seen that the question is no longer an open one, and defendants contention in respect thereof must be overruled.
 No Prejudice Shown In regard to the exception taken on the ground of ,thea visit of the jur- or Steb Pinckney to sick wife, ii IS sufficient to say that the affidaviFsT filed by the state show conclusively that he was never out of the i'm mediate presence of sworn officer and that nothing occurred to pre- iudice .he, rights of the prisoner in the slightest degree.
 The same thing is true of the vis it's of the jurors to the picture show and church.
 | As 70 the juror, Byrd, tho Troof shows that he was accepted by de fendant with full knowledge that he had formed an opinion regarding this ooca from rumOr Dnd neWSnaner re- ports and might Ie, to some eT-ent wejudiced thereby; but, he stated on cath that he could and would .disre. gard such previously formed opin. ion and give defendant fair and i'm partial trial under the law and evi. dence. This is all that the law re- quires, and i. was true not only of MT. Byrd but of other jurors accept. | ed in this case.
 Vowell V. stase, 72 Ark, 15S.
 After a careful consideration of the record in this case, and diligent search of the authorities, I am un- able to conclude that any error pre- judicial to the substantial rights oi the defendant on the merits has been committed He has had a fair and impartial trial accocding to law, and the, evidence Is fully sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury. The motion for a new trial is, therefore, denied.