Criminal Law — Impanelment op Grand Jury — Difference in Form — Special Venire. — The impanelment of a grand jury from an entire venire, consisting of thirty names placed in the box, four of whom were not served by the sheriff, the panel, so far as'formed therefrom, being composed of jurors' present and not excused, is purely a difference in form only, from the requirement of the statute that the names of those jurors who were present in court and not excused should be placed in the box; and where there was a failure to secure nineteen grand jurors from the regular venire, it was regular for the court to complete the impanelment from a special venire.

Id. — Pleading — Demurrer Sustained to Information — Order for New Information—Indictment. — Although the court, upon sustaining a demurrer to an information, ordered that another information should be filed, the defendant may nevertheless be presented by indictment for the offense charged in the information without an order of court submitting it to the grand jury.

Id. — Indictment for Perjury upon Trial for Larceny—Evidence — Immaterial Variance. —The variance is immaterial between an indictment for perjury, alleged to have been committed upon a trial for grand larceny, under an information described as charging that the property stolen in another county was “feloniously” brought into the county of the venue, and the information placed in evidence, which omitted the word “ feloniously,” while in every other particular the information pleaded and the one proved exactly corresponded. The defendant could not be prejudiced by such variance, for the reason that the word “feloniously” was not necessary to the validity of the information.

Id. — Evidence—Verdict and Judgment in Larceny Case — Cure of Error. — Whatever error was committed in receiving in evidence the verdict and judgment in the larceny case was cured by taking such evidence away from the jury and instructing them to disregard it.

Id. —Materiality of Perjured Testimony—Identification of Stolen Property. —The materiality of the alleged perjured testimony, given upon the trial for larceny, appears from proof that it had a strong tendency to weaken the evidence going to the point of identification of the stolen property, which was the vital point in the case.