Criminal Law—Murder—Conviction in First Degree—Sufficiency of Information.—An information for murder is sufficient if it substantially follows the language of section 187 of the Penal Code, which includes murder in both degrees. An information which charges that the defendant did “willfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, kill and murder” a person named, though it omits the word “unlawfully,” is substantially sufficient to sustain a conviction of murder in the first degree.

Id.—Arraignment—Delivery of Copy to Attorney—Absence of Objection—Bill of Exceptions—Waiver of Irregularity.—It seems that upon arraignment of the defendant, the delivery of a copy of the information to his attorney is a sufficient delivery to the defendant, in the absence of objection of the defendant; and where the bill of exceptions shows that the defendant was duly arraigned, that fact is to be deemed established upon appeal. If there was any irregularity in delivering the copy to the attorney instead of to the defendant, it was waived by his finally entering a plea of not guilty, upon which he was tried, without objection at any time to such delivery in the lower court.

Id.—Removal of Criminal Action—Erroneous Method—Jurisdiction —Order of Removal.—Where upon the removal of a criminal action from one county to another, the method for the removal of civil causes was erroneously followed, in sending the original pleadings, papers, and files to the court to which the removal was made instead of sending certified copies thereof, as contemplated by section 1036 of the Penal Code, such error is not jurisdictional, but the court to which the action was removed acquired jurisdiction by the making and entry of the order of removal thereto, of which due proof was made by filing a certified copy thereof in such court.

Id.—Absence of Objection to Irregularity.—The defendant was not prejudiced by the irregularity of method in transmitting the original papers, instead of certified copies thereof, where no objection was raised to any informality on that ground.

Id.—Jury Trial—Drawn Jury—Special Venire—Discretion—Appeal.—While it is more in accord with the spirit of the law to select a jury in a criminal case by drawing names from the jury-box, the court has power to order a special venire to be summoned by a qualified sheriff, and with the exercise of that power this court will not interfere where no gross abuse of discretion is apparent in the record.

Id.—Defense of Insanity—Evidence—Opinions—“Intimate Acquaintance”—Discretion.—TJpon a defense of insanity, the deter-ruination of the question whether a witness is such an “intimate acquaintance” of the defendant as to be qualified to testify to his opinion of the sanity or insanity of the defendant is peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed upon appeal, except where the evidence of intimate acquaintance is so lacking as to show unquestionably an improper exercise of discretion.

Id.—Evidence—Threats against Other Persons—Connection with Murder.—Threats of the defendant against other persons are admissible under circumstances showing a connection with the murder committed. Where the deceased was a sheriff who was shot because he sought to interfere with the threatened murder of other persons who had procured bis arrest, threats as to these murders were admissible against the defendant.

Id.—Instructions—Distinction as to Degrees, of Murder—Inconsistent Instruction for Dependant.—Where the" court gave approved instructions as to the distinction between the degrees of murder, the fact that a portion of another instruction given at defendant’s request is inconsistent therewith, and states the rule more favorably to the defendant than it should have done, gives him no ground of complaint.

Id.—Instruction as to Insanity—Care as to Examination of Defense—Criticism.—An instruction as to the care with which the defense of insanity should be examined, though held not to be erroneous under former decisions of this court, would be better omitted, in view of the danger that the jury may take it as an intimation by the judge of his opinion of the ease on trial.

Id.—Presumption of Sanity—Burden of Proof as to Insanity—Evidence Required.—The defendant is presumed to be sane until the contrary appears, and the burden of proving the defense of insanity is upon the defendant, and to entitle him to a verdict on the ground of such defense the evidence must be such in amount that if a single issue of the sanity or insanity of the defendant were submitted to the jury in a civil ease, the jury would find that he was insane.

Id.—Killing Without Malice in Attempt to Murder Third Person, —If the deceased was killed in the commission of a malicious and deliberate attempt to murder a third person, though without malice or ill-will against the deceased, the homicide is as much murder in the first degree as if the fatal blow had reached the person intended.