McDonald

Defendants Pipitone and Cuscio, together with three others named McDonald, Bono and De Maria, were charged with the crime of possessing a still. The cause having been dismissed as to McDonald, the lát ter appeared as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. The remaining four defendants were convicted of the offense charged. At the trial defendant Bono admitted he had operated the still under the direction of McDonald, but exonerated all of the other defendants. This appeal is prosecuted by the defendants Pipitone and Cuscio from the judgment of conviction and the orders denying their motions for a new trial.

It is conceded that McDonald was an accomplice. The principal question on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to meet the requirements of section 1111 of the Penal Code with respect to corroboration of his testimony. This section reads as follows:

Independently of the testimony of the accomplice McDonald, the evidence showed that the still in question was located on certain premises belonging to McDonald. These premises consisted of two dwelling-houses, one being in the rear of the other, together with a garage adjacent to the rear house. The still was in the…