Raischke

XThe defendant was convicted of grand larceny; from the judgment rendered against him and an order denying a new trial, he appeals.

The case has been here before ( 73 Cal. 378 ). • The defendant was then awarded a new trial, because of an erroneous instruction granted by the court below.

It was contended on that appeal that there was no evidence of any larceny of the goods charged to have been stolen by the defendant, and the same point is made now. Upon that contention the appellate court determined adversely to the defendant.

We have carefully examined and compared the evidence as set out in the transcript of both appeals, and find no material difference so far as the main points of the evidence are affected. That which was testified to by Bernard, the owner of the goods alleged to have been taken and stolen, as it appears in the present record, is not so full in some particulars as on the former trial. Bernard was alive at the time, but died before the second trial was had, and his evidence was introduced at the later period in the form of a long-hand transcription of the reporter’s notes of his evidence taken before the police court on the preliminary examination of the…