Criminal Law—Refusal to Arrest Judgment—Review upon Appeal. —An order denying a motion in arrest of judgment is not appeal-able, but any error in connection with the motion in arrest of judgment may be reviewed on appeal from the judgment.

Id.-—Drawing Fraudulent Bank Check—Sufficient Information.— An information charging that defendant did, with intent to defraud one G. B. Rourk, draw, utter, and deliver to one Frank Harrington a certain cheek for the payment of money in the sum of twelve dollars on a specified bank, knowing at 'the time that he had no funds or credit in said bank, states facts sufficient to constitute the public offense defined in section 476a of the Renal Code; and a demurrer thereto was properly overruled and a motion in arrest of judgment was properly denied.

Id.-—Sufficiency of Evidence.—The evidence introduced is held legally sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

Id.—Prejudicial Error in Ruling—Improper Cross-Examination of Defendant—Passing under Assumed Hames—Absence of Issue. ■—Where on the direct examination of defendant he merely stated his true name as stated in the indictment, and there was no issue as to any other name or testimony by him as to any different name, it was prejudicially erroneous to allow him to be cross-examined as to numerous assumed names under which he passed, manifestly not for the purpose of discrediting the witness, but solely for the purpose of reflecting-upon his character as a man and creating the impression that he was in the habit of going under assumed names, a matter not conducive to a good character for the defendant.

Id.—Defendant Tried for Specific Offense.—A defendant on trial for a specific offense may not be discredited in the minds of the jury by evidence of specific acts in his past life not connected in any way with the matter under investigation, unless the evidence given by him on direct examination was of such a nature as to warrant it as proper cross-examination; and where the evidence did not so warrant it, it practically amounted to the evidence of circumstances tending to show guilt, thus virtually compelling the defendant to testify against himself, which the law does not permit.

Id.—Assumption op Assumed Name—Knowledge op Order op Arrest —Evidence Tending to Show Flight.—Evidence of the assumption of an assumed name, after knowledge of an .order of arrest, must be regarded as constituting evidence inconsistent with innocence of the charge against him, and as constituting practically evidence of flight.