[1] Jury—Appointment of Elisor—Power of Court.—In the absence of the disqualification of both the sheriff and coroner, the court has no power to appoint an elisor to summon a jury.

[2] Id.—Method of Summoning Jury — Waiver by Defendant in Criminal Case.—While the constitutional right to trial by jury cannot be waived by the defendant in a criminal case, the statutory procedure of summoning the jury may be waived by him or his counsel.

[3] Id.—Disqualification of Sheriff—Appointment of Elisor Instead of Coroner—Waiver of Irregularity.—The right of a defendant in a criminal case, where the sheriff is disqualified, to have the jury summoned by the coroner instead of by an elisor is waived where he knowingly consented, in the presence of an opportunity to object, to the summoning of the jury by an elisor.

[4] Id.—Placing of Jury in Charge of Deputy Sheriff—Absence of Objection—Insufficient Ground for Reversal.—Irregularity in placing the jury upon retiring for deliberation in charge of a deputy sheriff, where the sheriff is disqualified, is not a ground for reversal of the judgment, where no objection to the appointment was raised at the trial.

2. Waiver of jury trial in criminal cases, notes, 1 Arm. Cas. 597; 9 Ann. Cas. 1183.

[5] Id.—Irregularities in Custody of Jury — When Ground for Eeversal.—In the absence of an affirmative showing of prejudice to the defendant, a reversal for irregularities in regard to the custody and management of the jury cannot be had.

[6] Criminal Law — Murder — Evidence — Pistol and Clothing Found at Time of Arrest.-—In a prosecution for murder by shooting, it was not error to admit in evidence the pistol and bag of clothing found at the time of defendant’s arrest near the spot where he was taken into custody, although three weeks had elapsed between the date of the murder and the time of his arrest.

[7] Id.—Pistol Found in Possession of Defendant—Theft from Witness—Eelevancy of Testimony.—Where in a prosecution for murder it was proven that 38 and 41 caliber bullets were found in the body of the deceased and that a pistol capable of discharging bullets of both caliber was found in the cabin where defendant was arrested, the testimony of a witness that he had owned such pistol for several years and that it had been taken from him about a month before the murder, when he and others were robbed by a number of men among whom was the defendant, was relevant as tending to prove that defendant possessed the pistol at the time of the murder.

[8] Id.—Proof of Another Crime—Admissibility.—Whenever proof of one crime tends to prove any facts material in the trial of another, such proof is admissible, and the fact that it may tend to prejudice the defendant in the minds of the jurors by inducing the belief that he had been the perpetrator of another crime is no ground for its exclusion.

[9] Id.—Argument of District Attorney—Deference to Defendant as Associate of Prisoners—Absence of Misconduct.—In a prosecution for murder, reference by the district attorney in his argument to the jury to the defendant as the known associate of prisoners in the jail was not misconduct where it was brought out upon the examination of defendant, as well as by other witnesses for t'he defense, that on the afternoon of the day of the murder defendant went to the jail for the purpose of seeing a friend who was then held as a prisoner, and that another of his associates had been in the prison shortly before that time.

[10] Id.—Drawing of Inferences—Eight of District Attorney.—A district attorney has the right, in his argument to the jury to draw any inferences from the testimony which, in his judgment, are logical.

[11] Id.—Comment upon Brevity of Defendant’s Testimony — Misconduct of District Attorney.—In a prosecution for murder, comment by the district attorney during the course of his argument to the jury calling attention to how little testimony the defendant gave was misconduct, but not sufficient ground for reversal where he desisted from further comment upon objection, and the evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction.

[12] Id.—Failure to Bequest Admonitory Instruction—Effect on Appeal.—Where the misconduct of the district attorney is such that its effect would be obviated by an instruction and no such aid is invoked, the error cannot be complained of on appeal.