Graham

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for petit larceny, on the ground of misconduct of the prosecuting officers.

The information charged defendant and another with the crime of grand larceny—the stealing of two sows and five pigs, of the value of seventy-five dollars. Graham demanded and was granted a separate trial. From the record before us it appears that four days were consumed and fifty-five witnesses examined during the trial—the transcript covering nearly five hundred pages.

[1] It is claimed by appellant that, “During the arguments of the case to the jury the following remarks of the counsel for the prosecution were excepted to by the defendant:

The foregoing does not constitute ground for exception (People v. Willard, 150 Cal. 543 , [ 89 Pac. 124 ]), and, accord ig to the positive and unqualified statement of appellant, is “the sole basis” of his appeal.

We think that the mere statement of this claimed assignment of error is to answer it. There is positively no merit therein. With the court’s instruction and admonition to the jury before us, in the absence of showing to the contrary, we .are bound to presume that the jury obeyed and heeded the same. We…