Bowman

A rehearing was granted that we might give consideration to an alleged special verdict that now appears in the corrected transcript but which was not before us at the former hearing. In relation to the said verdict the account presented by the record is as follows: “The jury returned into court. Judge Childs: Have you reached a verdict, gentlemen? Foreman: We have two verdicts and if the one is not legal we have another. The Court: You will pass it over. The foreman passed to the court a document which read as follows: ‘We the jury find the defendant guilty of obtaining the signature of N. Giacomini on a certain promissory note under false pretenses but with no intention to defraud said N. Giacomini of the amount. Wm. MeAdoo, Foreman. ’ The Court: This does not find him guilty of anything. Foreman: Then we have this verdict: ‘We the jury find the defendant guilty of the crime charged and leave to the mercy of the court. ’ The jury was then polled. ’ ’

Appellant claims that the first of the foregoing constituted a special verdict within the contemplation of the following sections of the Penal Code: ‘ ‘ The jury when they are in doubt as to the legal effect of the facts proved, may…