Criminal Law—Appeal—Order Denying Motion in Arrest of Judgment—Adjudication of Sanity—N on appealable Orders.—In a criminal action, an appeal does not lie from an order denying a motion in arrest of judgment, or from an adjudication of sanity-made before judgment.

Id.—Sanity of Defendant—Trial After Conviction of Crime—Object of Proceeding.—The sole object of the proceeding under sections 1191, 1367 et seq. of the Penal Code to have the sanity of a defendant tried by a jury after his conviction of the offense charged . and before judgment, is to determine, not whether he was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, but whether he was insane when arraigned for judgment.

Id.—Evidence—Burden of Proof.—In a proceeding under sections 1191, 1367 et seq. of the Penal Code to have the sanity of a defendant ■ tried by a jury after conviction of the crime charged and before judgment, it is incumbent on the defendant to show by a preponderance of evidence that his mind was in such condition that he did not rightfully comprehend his own condition with reference to the proceedings against him, and that he was then unable to present in a rational manner any defense.

Id.—Number of Jurors Essential to Verdict—Instruction.—In a proceeding to have the sanity of a defendant determined, it is needless to determine as to the correctness of an instruction to the effect that three-fourths of the jury might render a verdict, where the record shows that the verdict was concurred in by all of the twelve jurors.

Id.—Peremptory Challenges—Code Sections Inapplicable.—Proceedings to determine the sanity of a defendant are special proceedings of a civil nature, and the provisions of the Penal Code relating to the formation of trial juries in criminal cases and as to the number of peremptory challenges have no application.

Id.^-Test of Sanity—Instruction.—In a proceeding to determine the sanity of a defendant after conviction and before judgment, an instruction that the verdict of guilty established beyond question the sanity of the defendant at the time of the commission of the crime is inapplicable, but without prejudice, where the jury was also instructed that the test was the present mental condition of the defendant.

Id.—Defense of Insanity—Cautious Examination by Jury—Instruction.—An instruction that a defense of insanity should examined with great care is applicable in a proceeding to determine the sanity of a defendant after verdict and before judgment.

Id.—Unlawful Act—Presumption of Unlawful Intent—Instruction.—An instruction that it is a presumption of law that an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent is inapplicable in a proceeding to determine the sanity of a defendant, but without prejudice, being a mere abstract statement of law.

Id.—Evidence of Defendant Admissible.—In a proceeding to determine the sanity of a defendant after conviction and before judgment, evidence given by the defendant on the trial is admissible.