Eaton

Defendant was convicted of a violation of what is known as the “Criminal Syndicalism Act” (Stats. 1919, p. 281), and he appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial. It is not disputed that the evidence warrants the verdict, and the only claim for a reversal is that the court prejudicially erred in refusing to give certain instructions proposed by the defendant.

That it is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury as to every legal principle involved in the ease is made plain by the statute (Pen. Code, see. 1127) and the decisions of the courts, hut it is also established that the trial court is not required to give a pertinent instruction in the language of the defendant or because so requested, if it is substantially covered by the charge which is given.

With these admitted propositions in view we may examine the three proposed instructions which were refused.

The first simply states the nature of the charge against the defendant and contains a definition of the terms “criminal syndicalism” and “sabotage.” This instruction was clearly and fully covered by those given by the court and found on pages 22 and 28 of the transcript and no…