Crowley

Defendants were convicted upon an information charging them jointly with the crime of robbery. Defendant Crowley was sentenced to imprisonment at Folsom for the term of twenty years and defendant Wilson was sentenced to imprisonment at San Quentin for the term of fifteen years. Defendants appeal from the judgment and from the order denying their motion for a new trial.

1. The first point made by appellants is that the court erred in denying defendants’ motion to set aside the information, for the reason that at the preliminary examination, they “were not fully informed of their rights by the magistrate as to their right to counsel.” (Citing Pen. Code, see. 858.) Conceding that the failure of the magistrate to comply with the provisions of said section is cause for setting aside the information (People v. Napthaly, 105 Cal. 643 , [ 39 Pac. 29 ]), we think the record shows sufficient compliance therewith. The following proceedings took place before the magistrate: “The Court. Q. What is your name? A. Dan Crowley. Q. What is your name ? A. Frank Wilson. There is a complaint filed in this court charging you with a felony. The district attorney will read the complaint. The complaint…