Dolan

The defendant was convicted of the abduction of a female, under section 267 of the Penal Code. From the judgment rendered, and from an order refusing a new trial, and also from an order refusing to grant a motion in arrest of judgment, he appeals.

No appeal lies from the order last mentioned. (People v. Markham, 64 Cal. 157 ; 49 Am. Rep. 700 .)

One of the material points made for the reversal of of the judgment and order is, that the magistrate before whom the preliminary examination was had after the defendant’s arrest did not himself swear the complain *317 ing witness to the complaint filed against the defendant in the magistrate’s court.

The magistrate was the judge of the police court of Sacramento, and the affidavit to the complaint was taken by the clerk of that court. Even if it be admitted that such clerk had no power to take the affidavit or oath, we do not see how that affects the question of the validity of the information, which, upon this as one ground urged by the appellant, the superior court refused to set aside. For it was said by the appellate court in People v. Velarde, 59 Cal. 457 : “The regularity of the proceeding by information did not therefore depend…

—I concur in the judgment. The court, at the request of defendant, instructed the jury as follows: —

In view of these clear and explicit instructions, and which stated the law correctly upon the point to which they relate, I do not think it possible that- the jury could have been misled by the tenth instruction as modified and given by the court.