Parisi

The defendant was charged by indictment with the infamous crime against nature and upon trial was foiind guilty. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial. As grounds for reversal he contends that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the prosecution’s witnesses, and thereby deprived him of the right to show that his arrest and prosecution were the result of an attempted extortion; also that the court erred in arbitrarily refusing to grant him time to secure affidavits to be used on motion for a new trial.

The circumstances leading up to the defendant’s arrest, as they appear from the evidence, were as follows: The alleged crime was committed upon a boy eighteen years of age with whom and with whose family defendant had been on friendly terms for many years. At the time of his arrest, and for some time prior thereto, defendant lived alone in a couple of rooms constructed mostly of windows and glass doors on the roof of a building which he owned on Kearny Street, San Francisco. During the early part of May the boy’s mother became suspicious of her son’s appearance and conduct, and, unknown to the boy,…