There is no error in this record. The main point as to the alibi set up by defendants presents a case of conflicting evidence, with no features which take it out of the general rule so frequently announced by this court, that under such circumstances there can be no reversal.

There is but one other point which we think it necessary to notice:—

During the trial a Chinaman was under examination as a witness, through an interpreter, and (we quote from the transcript), the following occurred:—

If it appeared in the transcript that these instructions to the interpreter were acted on, and that the interpreter merely reported to the court that the witness had stated something that had been told him by somebody else, and the court had acted on that bare statement, without requiring the interpreter to repeat what the witness had said, we should hold it to be clearly error, for which a reversal should be- ordered. It is the duty of the interpreter to interpret and report to the court every statement made by the witness. The court should so instruct the interpreter and require a strict compliance with such instruction. The direction above given to the interpreter by the court, would devolve on the interpreter the duty belonging by law to the court, which duty the court cannot transfer to another person. The parties have a right to hear what was said by the witness, and the court may be asked to rule on it. An interpreter is not selected for the discharge of a duty essentially judicial. We think it necessary, to make these observations on this point, adding, as above stated, that as it does not appear from the record that the direction to the interpreter was acted *307 on, we find nothing on which to base a judgment for reversal. The error committed was one where no injury to the defendants supervened.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Morrison, C. J., Myrick, J., and oss, J., concurred.