Burns

The defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and this appeal was taken by him from the judgment and from a denial of a new trial.

1. The first point made is that the court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion to set aside the information because the defendant had not been legally committed by a magistrate. This is based upon the contention that there is legally no such , officer as the clerk of the police court of Los Angeles, before whom the complaint upon which the warrant of arrest was issued purported to have been sworn to, and it is further contended that, conceding the existence of such an officer, still such *531 officer is not a magistrate, and under section 811 of the Penal •Code the complaint must be sworn to before a magistrate.

The first proposition was decided adversely to the appellant in In re Mitchell, 120 Cal. 384 . The second proposition was also •decided adversely to him in People v. Vasalo, 120 Cal. 168 .

2. It is also contended that the defendant was not properly •committed, because he was jointly charged with one Tollman, and demanded from the magistrate a separate examination. The statute does not confer this right upon an accused…