Malone

The defendant was informed against, jointly with one Henry Warner, by the district attorney of Sonoma County, for the crime of burglary, and, having been convicted of the crime so charged, prosecutes this appeal from the judgment of conviction.

Ad opinion in the ease of the defendant’s codefendant, Henry Warner (Grim. No. 273), affirming the judgment therein, was this day handed down by and filed in this court. (.People v. Warner, ante, p. 751, [ 145 Pac. 545 ].) As the charge against both Warner and the defendant grew out of precisely the same transaction, the general facts are, of course, the same in both cases, and, having fully stated the facts in the Warner ease, it is not considered necessary to repeat them here.

The defendant in the present case makes the points that the information is fatally defective in that the description of the building alleged to have been burglarized is not sufficiently definite to apprise him of the particular building thus referred to and that the evidence is so wanting in probative power that it is incapable of upholding the verdict. Upon both these points our views are expressed in the Warner case, and we have discovered no reason for holding…