Russell

The defendant was convicted of the crime of arson in the first degree. From the judgment -rendered against him in the premises and an order denying him a new trial, he has appealed.

He claims that his demurrer to the information should have been sustained, as that pleading did not charge him with any public offense. His argument in this connection is, that although the information is drawn substantially in the language of section 447 of the Penal Code, it was fatally defective because it did not go further, and declare in the language of section 448 of the same code that the building the defendant is alleged to have burned was “ one capable of affording shelter to human beings, or appurtenant thereto, or connected with an erection so adapted.”

It has been frequently held by the appellate court of California that an information or indictment drawn substantially in the language of the statute which defines the offense is sufficient. (People v. White, 34 Cal. 183 -188; People v. Cronin, 34 Cal. 191, 208-210 ; People v. Lewis, 61 Cal. 366, 367 ; People v. Turner, 65 Cal. 541 , 542.)

It has also been decided that an information for arson is sufficient if it follows the language of…