Stennett

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 372 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 373 The defendant was charged by an information filed in the superior court in and for the county of Sutter with a felony, consisting of the crime of petit larceny and a prior conviction of a like offense (Pen. Code, sec. 666 ), and he brings the case to this court by an appeal from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial. *Page 374 The property charged to have been stolen by the defendant consisted of automobile tires, three outer casings or tires, and three inner tubes, and were, so it is claimed, taken from the Ford automobile of one A. F. King, a resident of Meridian, Sutter County. It appears that on the evening of March 5, 1920, between the hours of 8 and 9 o'clock, Raymond King, a brother of the owner of said automobile, was driving in said car on the road running between the city of Marysville and the town of Meridian when, at a point on said road a distance of about a mile…

The defendant asks for a rehearing of his appeal, basing his petition on the sole ground that this court, in treating the points urged by him that error was made in the ordering of a special venire of jurymen to try his case, and in the making of the order, because of the disqualification of the sheriff, that the coroner serve the process for the special jury, grounded its conclusion thereon upon a misapprehension of the record. In the original opinion it was stated: "The minutes of the court relating to the orders in question are not reproduced in the transcript containing the record in these appeals, and there is, consequently, nothing in the transcript disclosing upon what showing, if any, the court ordered a special *Page 392 venire of jurors to be summoned to try the case or who were present in court at the time the order was made." Upon a re-examination of the transcript we find that we were mistaken in declaring that the minutes pertaining to the orders in question were not contained in the transcript, that portion of the transcript having in some way been overlooked by the writer of the opinion in the original investigation. It appears from the transcript that, prior to…