Robbery—Definition.—The defendant was convicted of robbery committed upon G., and it was claimed, on appeal, that one U. was associated with him in the taking of the property, and that there was an understanding between G. and U. and the defendant that at an appointed time and place they should go through the form of being robbed by the defendant.

Held: If the evidence supported.this theory, it would result that the act did not constitute the crime charged. But the evidence fails to show any such collusion between U. and G.

Id.—Evidence—Hearsay. —The Court did not err in refusing to admit evidence of declarations made by U. The evidence offered was mere hearsay.

Id.—Possession of Stolen Property.—The Court instructed the jury, that “the possession of stolen goods immediately after the theft is not in itself sufficient to convict the defendant of the. theft, but if unexplained, is a circumstance to be taken with other circumstances established by the evidence, to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant;” that “if the defendant is seen in possession of the stolen property shortly after it was stolen, and does not explain his possession by showing that it was honestly acquired, it is a circumstance tending to show his guilt.” Held: The instruction was correct.

Id.—Peremptory Challenges—Offense Punishable for Life.—Under Section 1070 of the Penal Code, “if the offense charged be punishable with death or with imprisonment in the -State prison for life, the defendant is entitled to twenty, and the State to ten, peremptory challenges. On a trial for any other offense the defendant is entitled to ten, and the State to five, peremptory challenges.” By section 213 of the same code, robbery is punishable by imprisonment in the State prison not less than one year.

Held: It is only in capital cases, or cases in which a life sentence is m terms affixed by the Legislature as the punishment of the crime, that the defendant is entitled to twenty peremptory challenges. Bobbery is not such a crime.