Ebanks

concurring.—I concur in the judgment and in the opinion of Mr. Commissioner Searls; but what is said in the opinion on the subject of hypnotism must be taken as applicable to the testimony offered on that subject in this case (which was clearly inadmissible), and not as covering the whole subject. It will not be necessary to determine whether or not testimony tending to show that a defendant committed the act charged while in a hypnotic condition is admissible until a case involving that precise question shall be presented.

Henshaw, J., and Van Fleet, J., concurred.

The defendant,. Joseph Japhet Ebanks, was charged by in formation with the murder of Harriet Stiles, at the county of San Diego, state of California, on the tenth day of September, 1895, and, upon a trial had under said information, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to death.

Defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Defendant moved to set aside the information upon *655 the grounds: 1. That, before the filing thereof, the defendant had not been legally committed by a magistrate; 2. That it was not subscribed by the district attorney of the county of San Diego, state of California.

The record shows that a complaint was filed with the justice, a warrant issued, the defendant arrested and committed for examination on the seventeenth day of September, 1895. The order holding the defendant to answer for the crime of murder is dated October 4,1895. The contention is that it does not appear that the defendant was given an examination until said last-mentioned date, and hence that the justice lost jurisdiction of the case.

The record shows that, at the hearing of the motion to set aside the information, among…