Sokolis

Defendant was convicted of the crime of receiving stolen property. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

No briefs were filed. On oral argument, counsel for appellant, without specifically pointing out any error of the trial court, stated as the ground of his appeal that oñ cross-examination of the defendant the court permitted that cross-examination to include matters outside of the scope of the direct examination, and that defendant was thereby unlawfully compelled to be a witness against himself.

The rule of law relating to such cross-examination, as well as the" manner in which that rule should be applied, was clearly explained by the supreme court in People v. Creeks, 170 Cal. 368, 379 [ 149 Pac. 821 ]. We have examined those portions of the defendant’s testimony to which we understand that the oral argument referred. On direct examination, the defendant gave an account of some transactions in which he purchased one or both of the automobiles which were alleged to have been stolen, and also described somewhat generally his method of transacting business in relation to the purchase and sale of automobiles. In reply to a question…