Vaughn

With reference to the point made upon the sufficiency of the information, we are satisfied that the demurrer was not well taken. The information follows the language of the statute and therefore, in our judgment, is sufficient.

In regard to the alleged misconduct of the district attorney, we think that while the comment of that officer upon the conduct and character of the defendant may have been somewhat harsh, nevertheless it was apparently but a deduction from the evidence; and this the prosecuting officer was entitled to make. He had a right to draw any inference from the testimony that in his judgment was logical. Moreover there was no request to the trial court to admonish the jury to pay no heed to the alleged misconduct. It has been the rule of this court—and we think the settled rule generally— that even though misconduct be conceded, in the absence of a request to the court to admonish the jury to pay no heed to it, complaint of the same will not be heard in this court.

Coming to the point that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict, we are satisfied that if the transaction involved in the information and established in evidence at the trial had been…