Feliz

Defendant was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, to wit, the stealing of a cow and heifer. He appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial. The errors complained of by defendant relate exclusively to the refusal of the court to give certain instructions requested by defendant. It seems to be conceded that the evidence justified the verdict.

1. The court refused the following instruction: “If you believe from the evidence that the defendant was not present at the time it is alleged that the crime was committed, you must acquit him.” This was not error. Defendant may have aided and abetted the crime without being personally present when the animals were stolen. One who aids and abets in the commission of a crime becomes a principal: Pen. Code, sec. 31. See, also, People v. Roberts, 122 Cal. 377 , 55 Pac. 137 , cited by both parties. The instruction might have misled the jury in the form requested.

2. The court refused the following instruction: “If you entertain any reasonable doubt from the evidence as to the sufficiency of the said evidence to establish an alibi in this ease, it is your duty to resolve such doubt by an acquittal of the…