Burdette

Defendants were convicted of the crime of violating section 146 of the California Vehicle Act, to wit, driving an automobile without the consent of its owner so to do, etc. Prom the ensuing judgment, as well as from the order by which the motion for a new trial was denied, defendants have appealed to this court. In addition thereto, defendant Lemons has appealed “from an order denying said defendant probation”.

The only specific point presented as a reason for the reversal of the judgment is “that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence”. It appears to be conceded by appellants that, standing by itself, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was legally sufficient to support the respective verdicts and the judgments rendered thereon. But it is contended that, since each of the defendants introduced considerable evidence by which it was made to appear that at the time when, and at the place where, the criminal offense was committed the defendants were “not only not present, but that they were miles away from the" scene of the crime”—the judgment and the orders from which the appeal is taken should be reversed. It may thus be noticed that by their appeal, for the…