Hawes

The defendant was convicted of the crime of murder of the second degree, and was sentenced to serve a term of fifty years in the state prison.

The first point made by counsel for appellant is that the court below erred in allowing Dr. Wright, one of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, to testify as an expert with respect to the distance at which the pistol carried- by the defendant at *651 the time of the homicide would produce powder marks on the skin. It is claimed that he was not shown to be an expert. The doctor testified that he had been a physician and surgeon for about seventeen years, and had had such experience as would enable him to say at what distance powder marks would be noticeable on the flesh from the firing of a pistol of 38 caliber, Smith and Wesson; that he had seen a great many gunshot wounds, powder marks; and powder burns in connection therewith, and knew of his own knowledge the distance between the discharged weapons and the bodies fired upon. Upon this showing we cannot say that the court erred in allowing the witness to speak. If the defendant desired to test the knowledge of the witness and the correctness of his statement as to his al|lity to…