sitions of witnesses in criminal cases, other than cases of homicide, when there is reason to believe that the witness, from inability or other cause, will not attend at the trial.

Const. 1849, Art. I, Sec. 8.

Section 626, Penal Code, prohibiting the having or vending of certain game in this state during certain periods, is sufficient to prohibit such acts, even though the game be lawfully killed in another state and brought into this state. Such law is not in violation of the constitution declaring that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, it appearing that the property in the game was acquired after the passage of the act. Ex parte Maier, 103

Cal. 476.

An insolvent debtor having been charged by the assignee with having concealed, etc., his property, was cited to appear for examination in court, and being sworn he declined to answer upon the ground that his answers might be made the ground of a criminal charge against him. [Sec. 154, Penal Code; Const. Art. I, Sec. 13.] To bring a person within the immunity of the constitutional provision, it is not necessary that the examination should be attempted in a criminal prosecution against the witness, or that such prosecution should have been already commenced. It is sufficient if there is a law creating the offense under which the witness may be prosecuted. Ex parte Clark, 103 Cal. 352. See Ex parte Gould, 99 Cal. 360, infra.

The trial of a criminal case (assault to commit rape) should be public in the commonsense acceptation of the term. The doors of the court room are expected to be kept open, the public are entitled to be admitted, and the trial is to be public in all respects, with due regard to the size of the court room, the conveniences of the court, the right to exclude objectionable characters and youth of tender years, and to do other things which may facilitate the proper conduct of the trial. An order excluding all persons but the officers of the court and defendant has no justification in the law of modern times. People v. Hartman, 103 Cai. 242. Contra. The word "public" is used only in contradistinction to "secret." People v. Swafford, 65 Cal. 223, infra.

A person was charged by information filed in Tulare county. Subsequently that county was divided and Kings county created from part of its territory. The particular locality where the crime was alleged to have been committed was within the new county. The information in Tulare county was dismissed and a new information filed in Kings county. Held, although the case might properly have been tried in Tulare, yet there was no error in the proceedings had, and defendant had not been in jeopardy by reason of the first information. The People v. Stokes. Opinion. filed June 23, 1894.

An article published in a newspaper and read by the members of the jury, which inti

mates that the jury will be hung by two of its members, and that such members are known, and that bribery exists to effect such result, is calculated to defeat a fair and impartial trial, and a judgment of conviction will be set aside and new trial granted. People v. Stokes, 103 Cal. 193.

Proceedings for contempt are criminal in character, and party accused may be proceeded against by information or indictment in some cases, as well as by summary action by the court. Person proceeded against summarily cannot be compelled to be a witness. [Sec. 1323, Pen. Code; 1209-1222, C. C. P.] Ex parte Gould, 99 Cal. 360.

A city ordinance may impose additional penalties from statute law, or embrace additional subject. So long as the offense is different, a person may be proceeded against under either or both. Ex parte Hong Shen, 98 Cal. 681.

Deposition of witness taken at former trial not within this provision and not admissible. [Sec. 686, Pen. Code.] People v. Gordon, 99 Cal. 227.

Section 8, county government act, provides that whenever any board of supervisors shall, without authority of law, order any money paid as salary or fees, and such money shall have been actually paid, it shall be the duty of the district attorney to bring suit in name of county against person to whom the money was paid, to recover the same, with twenty per cent. damages for the use thereof. Held,

the provision for recovery of damages is not unconstitutional, as taking property without due process of law. Orange Co. v. Harris, 97 Cal. 600.

Section 720, Code of Civil Procedure, authorizing judgment creditor to institute supplemental proceedings against debtor of the judgment debtor is not unconstitutional, as a taking of property without due process of law. High v. Bank of Commerce, 95 Cal. 386.

Convicted felons are [Secs. 1878-1881, C. C. P.] made competent witnesses, and defendants on trial are entitled to have such witness brought from the penitentiary [Sec. 1567, Pen. Code] upon a proper showing of materiality of the testimony. People v. Willard, 92 Cal. 482.

Section 1382, Penal Code, is mandatory, and prescribes the means, and the only means, of enforcing the constitutional right to a speedy and public trial. People v. Staples, 91 Cal. 29, citing People v. Morino, 85 Cal. 515.

The act of 1889 [Stats. p. 70] relating to opening, widening, etc., of streets, does not provide for taking property without due process of law. The act provides due notice of every material step taken in the proceedings, and it is not unconstitutional that such notice may be given by posting instead of personally. Davies v. City of Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 37.

It is the duty of the court to submit to the jury the issue raised by a plea of former jeopardy, and have it specially passed on, in addition to the general finding upon the plea

of not guilty. People v. Hamburg, 84 Cal. 468; [People v. Fuqua, 61 Cal. 377.]

If section 1180, Penal Code, authorizes defendant to be tried for higher offense after conviction of lower offense has been set aside at his instance, it is unconstitutional. People v. Gordon, 99 Cal. 227. See People v. Carty, 77 Cal. 213, and People v. Keefer, 65 Cal. 232, where it was held that a conviction for manslaughter being set aside on defendant's appeal, he could afterwards be convicted of murder under the same indictment or information.

The plea of once in jeopardy and former acquittal must be entered in the minutes substantially as prescribed by section 1017, Penal Code. People v. O'Leary, 77 Cal. 30.

When defendant procures a reversal of a judgment against him upon appeal, though asking for a discharge because of insufficiency of the verdict, and not for a new trial, if the prayer for discharge be denied and new trial ordered, he will be deemed to have impliedly assented to all the consequences legitimately following his appeal, and a plea of once in jeopardy by reason of the former trial cannot be sustained upon the new trial. People v. Travers, 77 Cal. 176.

There cannot be as many prosecutions for libel maintained upon a single article published in a single issue of a newspaper as there are false and defamatory statements concerning a single individual in such article. "Out of the same facts a series of charges shall