Ledbetter

Following their conviction of the crime of bribery, defendants appeal from the judgment as well as from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The only reason suggested by appellants for • a reversal of the judgment is that error was committed by the trial court in its order by which the motion for a new trial was denied.

The dependent circumstances may be' briefly stated as follows: The prosecuting witness,. who was corroborated in his testimony by his wife, and one Betty Pierce, who was employed in the household of the prosecuting witness, tended to show that the alleged offense. was committed at the home of the prosecuting witness, in the City of Los Angeles, some time either in the latter part of the’ month of September or the early part of the month of October, and especially at a time after Betty Pierce was employed by such witness. In substance, it was stipulated by the parties to the action that Betty Pierce was not in the employ of the prosecuting witness prior to August ,8th; and admittedly the evidence is conclusive to the effect that, as far as related to the transaction out of which the alleged bribery arose, defendants came in contact with the prosecuting…