Hahn

Defendant was convicted of robbery and he appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

One point is that the evidence was insufficient, particularly as to the identification of the defendant by the prosecuting witness, to support the verdict. How utterly insubstantial is this claim may be seen from the following testimony. John Gibson, the prosecuting witness, testified:

He further testified that he saw the defendant and one Hilger, who had been convicted of the same charge by a jury, together that afternoon.

Police Officer J. F. Pierini testified that he was on the scene shortly after the hold up, that “I saw two fellows running toward Fourth Street, and this fellow Hilger ran toward me. Q. How far away from you were they at that time? A. Well, I couldn’t observe the distance, because they were running. I had hold of Hilger taking him over to Jack Gibson, who was sitting in the doorway. . . . There was one big man and the others were not very big, about the size of Hilger. Q. ,But one of them was a large fellow ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And in reference to this defendant, comparatively was he about the same build? A. About the same. Q. Of course, as I…