Court Opinion

ID: 5605976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 03:43:29.875016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:56.726395
License: Public Domain

Russell, J.
1. Although the indictment, if treated as charging the defendant as accessory after the fact of the offense of burglary, may be technically defective, the true character of a criminal accusation is not fixed by the denomination given it by the pleader, but by its allegations; and the indictment in the present case is a sufficient charge against the defendant of the statutory offense of receiving stolen goods. Penal Code (1910), § 168.
2. There was no abuse of discretion in refusing a continuance.
3. Many of the numerous assignments of error are without merit, and none of them offer any substantial reason why the judgment of the lower court, in refusing a new trial, should be reversed.
4. The evidence fully supports the verdict. Judgment affirmed.
G. R. Hutchens, H. J. McBride, for plaintiff in error.
J. R. Hutcheson, solicitor-general, contra.