McBride

Defendant appeals to this court from three judgments which followed his conviction on each of three accusations of the crime of robbery, as well as from a judgment by which he was found to have been sane at the time when each of said crimes was committed; also from three orders by which his motion for a new trial with respect to each of said judgments was denied.

The principal point presented by appellant as a sufficient reason for a reversal of said judgments is that “the verdicts of the jury finding defendant and appellant sane, are erroneous and not sustained by the evidence”.

Without herein setting forth a detailed statement of the evidence adduced on the trial of the action, it may suffice to state that from an examination of the record herein it would seem clear that by a preponderance of the evidence, on the dates represented by the occasions when each of the several crimes of which defendant is accused was committed, apparently he was insane with respect to one or more facts, or situations either then present, or which ■were suggested to defendant for his consideration. But with reference to the pertinent question of his insanity in the manner, or to the degree, that it…