Palassou

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of the crime of manslaughter and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

The court correctly refused the instruction requested by defendant’s counsel by which it was sought to leave the jury to pass upon the question as to whether or not the special pleas, interposed by defendant, of a former acquittal and of once in jeopardy had been proven, and in lieu thereof instructed the jury to find for the people upon both such pleas. There was no conflict in the evidence, which was to the effect that the defendant had upon the prior occasion been in jail, charged with the same offense for which he was here tried, and was upon his own motion discharged and the information dismissed because he had not been brought to trial within sixty days as required by law. This was not a bar to a future prosecution under a new information for the same offense (Pen. Code, sec. 1387; In re Bergerow, 136 Cal. 293 , [ 68 Pac. 773 ]), and the court had' the right to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the people upon the pleas. (People v. Ammerman, 118 Cal. 28 , [ 50 Pac. 15 ].)

It is claimed that the court erred in eliminating certain parts…