Cook

The defendant was found guilty of the crime of grand larceny. He bases his appeal, from the judgment and order of court denying his motion for a new trial, upon the action of the court in giving certain instructions offered by the people, and in denying his motion for a new trial made on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

The first instruction objected to by defendant was as follows: ‘ ‘ The court instructs the jury that the prosecution is not required to call as its own witnesses all persons who are shown to be present, or who may appear to have some knowledge of the- matters here on trial, nor is the prosecution required to produce as exhibits all objects or documents which have been referred to in, or the existence of which may have been suggested by, the testimony in the case.” The law is correctly stated in this instruction. (People v. Robertson, 67 Cal. 646 [ 8 Pac. 600 ]; People v. Johnson, 13 Cal. App. 776 [ 110 Pac. 965 ]; 16 Cor. Jur. 845, sec. 2132.) While it may be that the facts in the record did not make it necessary to give such instruction, the giving of it is not shown to have been a prejudicial error.

The court gave two instructions upon the subject of…