Keeley

The defendant was convicted of malicious mischief in putting a poisonous substance into a watering-trough, with intent that the same should be taken and swallowed by the horses, etc. The appeal is from the judgment and the order denying a new trial-.

It is contended by the appellant that the information does not state that the crime was committed in Yolo County, the county in which the action was brought and tried. The making of such a point is trifling with, the court, for the very first allegation of the information is, that the offense charged was committed “on the twenty-fifth day of February, A. D. 1889, in the county of Yolo,” etc.

The next point made is, that the information does not charge a crime, in that it does not state that the act was feloniously done, and does not specifically name the poisonous substance, or that it was a substance that would kill; and here we are treated to along dissertation upon the fact that poison is found in a large number *212 of substances used for food and for medicine for both, man and beast. But there can be no misunderstanding of what the statute (Pen. Code, sec. 596) means when it uses the term “poisonous substance.” The offense is…