People v. Jones

8 P. 611, 2 Cal. Unrep. 563, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 863
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Jones. Read the opinion of the Court — 63 Cal. 168
California Supreme Court·Decided November 24, 1885·No. No. 20,095·Published

Opinion

FOOTE, C.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of embezzlement, upon information under section 508 of the [564]*564Penal Code. A motion for a new trial was made in his behalf and denied. From the order made therein and the judgment of conviction he appealed. The grounds of this appeal are that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence, and that the court should have granted a new trial for that reason and that of newly discovered evidence. The preponderance of the evidence certainly went to prove the guilt of the defendant as charged, and the verdict against him should not be disturbed: People v. Ah Loy, 10 Cal. 301; People v. Gill, 45 Cal. 285; People v. Simpson, 50 Cal. 304.

It appears that it was within the defendant’s power to have introduced on his trial the most of that which he terms newly discovered evidence. And the material parts of it are flatly contradicted by a counter-affidavit of Mr. Fenner.

There is no error in the record and the judgment and order should be affirmed.

We concur: Belcher, C. C.; Searls, C.

By the COURT.—For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion the judgment ánd order are affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Jones, 8 P. 611, 2 Cal. Unrep. 563, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 863 (Cal. 1885).

8 P. 611 (People v. Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Ah Loy
10 Cal. 301 (California Supreme Court, 1858)
People v. Gill
45 Cal. 285 (California Supreme Court, 1873)
People v. Simpson
50 Cal. 304 (California Supreme Court, 1875)