dealers by the United States. It is also contended that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the county attorney in his argument improperly called the attention of the jury to the fact that the defendant did not testify. It is unnecessary to review this assignment, as the case must be reversed for failure to prove an intent to violate the prohibitory law. For this reason the judgment of the county court of Murray county is reversed.

HEALER v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 28, 1913.) Ap peal from County Court, Washington County; James T. Shipmen, Judge. Jack Healer was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Appeal dismissed. J. R. Charlton, of Bartlesville, for plaintiff in error. Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM. Jack Healer, plaintiff in error, was convicted of the crime of unlawfully selling whisky, and was on December 1, 1911, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 60 days and to pay a fine of $250. From this judgment an appeal was attempted to be taken by filing in this court on March 30, 1912, a petition in error, with case-made. When the case was called for final submission, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that said appeal was not taken within the time prescribed by the statute, in that no order was made extending the time beyond the 60 days allowed by law in which to perfect an appeal. For this reason, the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the cause remanded to the county court of Washington county, with direction to enforce its judgment and sentence.

HERMAN v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 3, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Kay County; Claud Duval, Judge. Lee Herman was convicted of violating the prohibitory liquor law, and he appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted. Herman S. Gurley, of Blackwell, for appellant. Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

FURMAN, J. R. M. Herman and Lee Herman were jointly prosecuted in the county court of Kay county by information, charged with the offense of having unlawful possession of certain intoxicating liquors with intent to sell the same. Separate trials were had, and both of the defendants were found guilty and appealed. The conviction of R. M. Herman was affirmed. See Herman v. State, 8 Okl. Cr. 422, 128 Pac. 179. Upon an investigation of the record, we are of the opinion that there is not sufficient evidence connecting Lee Herman with this transaction to sustain the verdict against him. The judgment of the lower court is therefore reversed, and a new trial is granted.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYLE, J., con

cur.

HOGAN v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. May 19, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Garfield County; Winfield Scott, Judge. Sam Hogan was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. W. O. Cromwell, of Enid, for appellant. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jos. L. Hull, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM. Appellant, Sam Hogan, was convicted at the October, 1911, term of the

of selling intoxicating liquor, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $400 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 120 days. Upon a careful examination of the record, we find some irregularities in the trial; but upon the whole case the proof of the guilt of appellant is conclusive. There are no errors of law which in our judgment justify a reversal of the judgment. It is therefore affirmed. ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYLE, J., con

cur.

HOGAN et al. v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 28, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Garfield County; Winfield Cook were convicted of an illegal sale of liqScott, Judge. Sam Hogan and Walt uor, and appeal. Affirmed. W. O. Cromwell, of Enid, for plaintiff in error. Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. PER CURIAM. from a conviction had in the county court of This appeal is prosecuted Garfield county, on the 24th day of April, 1912. The verdict of the jury, omitting the formal parts, is as follows: "We, the jury impaneled and sworn to try the issues in the above-entitled cause, do, upon our oaths, find the defendants guilty as charged in the information, and assess the punishment of Sam Hogan at 90 days in the county jail and a fine of $250 and assess the punishment of Walt Cook at 180 days in the county jail and a fine of $500. [Signed] Jos. M. McCoy, Foreman." An appeal was taken by filing in this court June 1, 1912, a petition in error, with casemade. The questions presented have heretofore been passed upon and determined adversely to the contentions of the learned counsel for plaintiffs in error.. It is sufficient to say that the guilt of the plaintiffs in error was satisfactorily proven, and no testimony was offered in their behalf. Finding nothing that would justify a reversal, the judgments of conviction are hereby affirmed, and the cause remanded to the county court of Garfield county, with direction to enforce its sentences therein.

PER CURIAM. John McDonald, plaintiff in error, was convicted of unlawfully conveying intoxicating liquor, and was on the 30th day of January, 1912, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $50. From this judgment he appealed. No briefs have been filed. For this reason the Attorney General, when the case was called for final submission, moved to affirm for failure to prosecute the appeal. The motion to affirm is sustained, and the judgment is affirmed.

MCINTYRE v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 4, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Pittsburg County; B. P. Hammond, Judge. Alex McIntyre was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. Matthews & Rosewinkel, of McAlester, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the State.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was informed against and convicted of having in his possession intoxicating liquors with the intention of selling the same in violation of the prohibition law. Upon his trial the jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at con

he pay a fine of $50. No brief has been filed nor oral argument made on behalf of the defendant. The Attorney General has filed a motion to affirm for failure to prosecute the appeal. From an examination of the record, our conclusion is that this appeal was taken purely for delay, as there is not the semblance of merit in the errors assigned. The judgment of the county court of Pittsburg county is therefore affirmed. Mandate forthwith.

Ex parte McMILLAN. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. May 29, 1913.) Petition for writ of habeas corpus by Walter E. McMillan. Writ discharged, and petitioner remanded. Jennings & Levy and Miller & Gray, all of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM. Upon a duly verified petition a writ issued, returnable forthwith. It appears from the petition that Walter E. McMillan is held by the respondent, Jack Spain, sheriff of Oklahoma county, on a warrant issued on a complaint charging petitioner with being a fugitive from justice from the state of Kansas. Upon a hearing had upon the return of the writ, it was held that there was no irregularity in the proceeding for the arrest and detention of the petitioner sufficient to authorize his release. The writ is therefore discharged, and petitioner remanded to the custody of the respond

ent.

MCMILLIAN v. STATE (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. July 5, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Garfield County; Winfield Scott, Judge. B. B. McMillian was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. O. D. Hubbell, of Enid, for appellant. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

FURMAN, J. Appellant was convicted for violating the prohibitory liquor law, and his punishment was assessed at 90 days' confinement in the county jail and a fine of $250. The various questions of law presented in the brief of counsel for appellant have all been repeatedly decided adversely to the contentions therein made. Under these conditions the law relieves us of the necessity of writing an elaborate opinion. If it were not for the fact that our docket is crowded with business, we would be willing to take up and discuss the various questions presented; but we have no doubt as to the guilt of this appellant, and our duty to the state will not allow us to take time from other cases discussing questions which we have already decided. The judgment of the trial court is therefore in all things affirmed.

ARMSTRONG, P. J., and DOYLE, J., con

cur.

MARRS v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 14, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Murray County; Harry W. Fielding, Judge. John Marrs was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. W. N. Lewis, of Davis, and Emanuel & Broadbent, of Sulphur, for plaintiff in erSmith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

ror.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in error, John Marrs, was convicted at the November, 1911, term of the county court of Murray county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $300 and confinement in the county jail for a period of 90 days. We have carefully examined the record in this case, and can find no error prejudicial to the rights of the accused. The facts were sufficient to warrant the submission of

are such that this court cannot say any injustice was done. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

NEWMAN v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 28, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Washington County; James T. Shipman, Judge. Harvey Newman was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Appeal dismissed. J. R. Charlton, of Bartlesville, for plaintiff in error. Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, of Oklahoma City, for the State.

PER CURIAM. Harvey Newman, plaintiff in error, was convicted of the crime of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with the intent to sell the same, and was on the 18th day of November, 1911, sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury to be confined in the county jail for 30 days and pay a fine of $50. From this judgment an appeal was attempted to be taken by filing in this court March 16, 1912, a petition in error, with case-made. When the case was called for final submission, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, for the reason that said appeal was not taken within the time prescribed by the statute, in that no order was made extending the time beyond the 60 days allowed by law within which to perfect an appeal. For this reason, the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained, and the cause remanded to the county court of Washington county, with direction to enforce its judgment and sentence therein.

OELKE v. STATE (two cases). (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. May 24, 1913.) Appeals from County Court, Canadian County; W. A. Maurer, Judge. Carl Oelke was twice convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed in one case, and Forrest & Sansom, of reversed in another. El Reno, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in error, Carl Oelke, was tried and convicted at the October, 1911, term of the county court of Canadian county on two charges of selling intoxicating liquors. In No. A-1575 his punishment was fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for a period of 6 months and a fine of $500, and in No. A-1577 at imprisonment for 90 days and a fine of $250. The prosecuting witnesses were the same in each of these cases, and it appears. from the facts in both records that these convictions grew out of the same transaction. It is our conclusion that but one of these convictions should be sustained. We think the judgment in No. A-1575, imposing a fine of $500 and imprisonment for a period of 6 months, should be affirmed; and it is so ordered. And for the reason stated, the judgment in No. A-1577 should be reversed, with directions to the trial court to dismiss the prosecution; and it is so ordered.

OSBORNE v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 14, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Blaine County; Geo. W. Ferguson, Judge. George Osborne was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and he appeals. Reversed. Seymour Foose and R. C. Brown, both of Watonga, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson and E. G. Spilman, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in error, George Osborne, was convicted at the October, 1911, term of the county court of Blaine county on a charge of unlawfully transporting in

fine of $50 and imprisonment in the county jail | for a period of 30 days. The evidence on the part of the state shows simply a conveyance of liquor from one place in Blaine county to another place therein. The testimony of the accused shows that the whisky in question was an interstate shipment, purchased in Kansas City; that he was taking the same from his house to a place where he was working for his own use. Nobody contradicts his testimony in any way. A number of witnesses testified to his good character, and to the fact that he had never been suspected of violating the prohibitory law, and bore a good reputation as a law-abiding citizen. No witnesses denied these facts. The record discloses the fact that the accused was prosecuted for having possession of the same whisky, and that after the jury had been impaneled and sworn to try the charge of unlawful possession with intent to sell, the county attorney dismissed that case. He should have dismissed this one also. The conviction is wholly unwarranted. See Gastineau v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 512, 124 Pac. 464. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with direction to grant a new trial.

ror.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon an information charging him with assault, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury was sentenced to pay a fine of $5 and costs. To reverse the judgment an appeal was taken to this court. Plaintiff in error now files a motion to dismiss his appeal. From this motion it appears that while the appeal was pending in this court a motion for a new trial was made, upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, under that provision of Procedure Criminal (section 5938, Rev. Laws 1910), which provides that "a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made after judgment at the term at which the case was tried, or in vacation, before the judge or at the next term of court," and that a new trial was granted. Attached to the motion to dismiss is a certified copy of the order awarding a new trial. The motion to dismiss said appeal is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PRITCHETT v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 14, 1913.)Appeal from County Court, Craig County; S. F. Parks, Judge. T. W. Pritchett was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Reversed. James S. Davenport, of Vinita, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. S. Estes, of Oklahoma City, for the State.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in error was convicted upon an information, the charging part of which is as follows: "T. W. Pritchett did, in the county and state aforesaid, on the date aforesaid, willfully and unlawfully sell, barter, give away, and furnish one pint of spirituous liquor, one pint of vinous liquor, one pint of fermented liquor, one pint of malt liquor, one pint of imitation of spirituous liquor, one pint of imitation of vinous liquor, one pint of imitation of fermented liquor, one pint of imitation of malt liquor, one pint of a substitute for spirituous liquor, one pint of a substitute for vinous liquor, one pint of a substitute for fermented liquor, one pint of a substitute for malt liquor, one pint of compound which

An

of alcohol, and which was capable of being used as a beverage, to one Louis R. Harris, contrary," etc. Upon his trial he was found guilty and sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $50. Of the various alleged errors it is only necessary to consider the one that the information is bad for duplicity, and that the court erred in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff in error. information which charges two or more separate and distinct offenses, not based upon the same transaction, is bad for duplicity, and a demurrer thereto on this ground should be sustained. The plaintiff in error is charged in one count with the sale of intoxicating liquors, and also with the sale of an imitation or substitute for intoxicating liquor, which contained more than one-half of 1 per centum of alcohol, and which was capable of being used as a beverage. In the case of Bonitzer v. State, 4 Okl. Cr. 354, 111 Pac. 980, it is said that an information or indictment must charge but one offense, but when the same acts may constitute different offenses, and the proof may be uncertain as to which of the two or more offenses the accused may be guilty, the different offenses may be set forth in separate counts in the same indictment or information, and that in such cases the information or indictment must show on its face that the separate counts all This in effect amounts to but one accusation. refer to the one and the same transaction. Even where it would be permissible to charge

different offenses in the same information or indictment, upon the ground that they are all must be done in separate counts. based upon one and the same transaction, this In other words, it is a direct violation of the statute under any circumstances to charge two offenses in the same count. For error in overruling the demurrer of plaintiff in error to the information, the judgment is reversed.

SMITH v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Apfrom County Court, Carter County; M. F. peals of Oklahoma. June 6, 1913.) Appeal Winfrey, Judge. B. F. Smith was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Affirmed. W. I. Cruce, of Ardmore, for plaintiff in error. C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen. (W. R. Bleakmore, Chas. West, Atty. Gen., and Smith of Ardmore, of counsel), for the State.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Carter county for the crime of unlawfully conveying whisky, and was sentenced in accordance with the verdict of the jury to be confined in the county jail for a period of 60 days and that he pay a fine of $150. To reverse this judgment an appeal was perfected. The only assignment of error argued in the brief is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. The proof on the part of the state shows that the defendant was arrested on the road between Overbrook and Ardmore with 13 gallons of whisky in his buggy, 10 gallons of which belonged to him, and 3 gallons to his codefendant, John Black. Black entered a plea of guilty and served his sentence. The defendant, a negro doctor residing in the city of Ardmore, claimed that he had been called in his professional capacity to attend the wife of a negro, Tom Waters, who lived near Marietta, 10 miles beyond Overbrook; that he procured a horse and buggy from the livery stable, and drove to Overbrook, where he expected Waters to meet him and convey him to his patient; that he took Sam Woolridge with him to bring the horse back to the livery stable; that he was practically forced to carry the liquor after Black had placed it in his buggy. The record discloses that the defendant had a fair and impartial trial. The sufficiency of the evidence was a question purely for the jury. The jury under the law are

nesses and of the weight to be given to the evidence of each witness who testifies in the case. Where the verdict of the jury has been approved by the trial court, this court will not disturb the judgment, where there is evidence to support the verdict, unless it is apparent that injustice has been done. It is our opinion that the evidence is clearly sufficient to support the verdict. The judgment is affirmed.

the various errors assigned it is only necessary to consider the one-that the information is bad for duplicity, and that for this reason the court erred in overruling the demurrer thereto. The defendant is charged with the sale of intoxicating liquor, and also with the sale of an imitation and substitute for intoxicating liquor, thereby charging two offenses, and is bad for duplicity. For error in overruling the demurrer to the information, the judgment is reversed as to the defendant Charles Webb.

lant. the State. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a conviction for keeping a house of ill fame in the city of Enid. It is a companion case with that of Mrs. B. Putman v. State (No. A-1583) 132 Pac. 916, decided at the present term. All of the questions of law presented in this case were discussed and decided in the Putman Case. It is therefore not necessary to repeat them here. The evidence sustains the verdict. The judgment is therefore in all things affirmed.

The mandate will issue without delay.

STANDIFER v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. May 17, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Pottawatomie County; Ross F. Lockridge, Judge. Walter Standifer was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and appeals. Affirmed. Baldwin & Carlton and C. G. Pitman, all of Tecumseh, for plaintiff in error. Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Monroe Osborn, of Purcell, of counsel), for the State.

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff in error, Walter Standifer, was convicted at the October, 1911, term of the county court of Pottawatomie county on a charge of having the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor with intent to sell the same, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $150 and confinement in the county jail for a period of 60 days. The record in this case discloses the fact that there was some incompetent testimony admitted at the trial, but upon the whole case we are unable to say that this judgment should be reversed. In our judgment there is no miscarriage of justice. The plaintiff in error is clearly guilty. Let the judgment of the trial court be affirmed.

TITTLE et al. v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 25, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Craig County; S. F. Parks, Judge. Otis Tittle and Charles Webb were convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeal. Reversed as to defendant Webb. James S. Davenport, of Vinita, for plaintiff in error. Chas. West, Atty. Gen., Smith C. Matson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and C. J. Davenport, of Oklahoma City, for the State.

PER CURIAM. This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction had in the county court of Craig county, in which plaintiffs in error were found guilty of violating provisions of the prohibitory law, and the punishment of Otis Tittle was assessed by the jury at confinement in the county jail for 6 months, and that he pay a fine of $500, and the punishment of Charles Webb was assessed by the jury at confinement in the county jail for 30 days and that he pay a fine of $50. January 15, 1912, the court pronounced judgment and sentenced the defendants in accordance with the verdict. At the last term of this court the appeal of the defendant Otis Tittle was dismissed. 9 Okl. Cr. 131 Pac. 1198. Of

from a conviction had in the county court of PER CURIAM. This appeal is prosecuted Craig county, in which plaintiffs in error were found guilty of violating provisions of the prohibitory law, and the punishment of Otis Tittle was assessed by the jury at confinement in the county jail for 12 months, and that he pay a fine of $1,000, and the punishment of T. W. Pritchett was assessed by the jury at confinement in the county jail for 60 days and that he pay a fine of $250. On January ment and sentenced the defendants in accord15, 1912, the county court pronounced judgterm of this court the appeal of plaintiff in ance with the verdict of the jury. At the last error Otis Tittle was dismissed. 9 Okl. Cr. - 131 Pac. 1198. Of the various errors assigned it is only necessary to consider the one that the information is bad for duplicity, and that for this reason the court erred in overruling the demurrer thereto. Plaintiff in error T. W. Pritchett is charged with the sale of intoxicating liquor, and also with the sale of an imitation and substitute for intoxicating liquor, in one count. The information, therefore, charges_two offenses, and is bad for duplicity. See Pritchett v. State, 132 Pac. 1197, decided at this term. For error in overruling the demurrer to the information, the judgment is reversed as to the defendant T. W. Pritchett.

YOUNG v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 30, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Stephens County; W. H. Admire, Judge. B. C. Young was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals. Affirmed. Wilkinson & Morris, of Duncan, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the State.

PER CURIAM. B. C. Young, plaintiff in erpint of whisky to H. S. Roberts on October ror, was convicted of unlawfully selling one 4, 1911, and in accordance with the verdict of the jury he was on January 22, 1912, sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 30 days and to pay a fine of $50, and he appeals. No brief has been filed. We have examined the record, and find no error which will warrant a reversal of the judgment. It is therefore affirmed.

WEETE et al. v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 28, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Tulsa County; H. J. Gubser, Judge. F. E. Weete and Sam Johnson were convicted of having intoxicating liquor in possession with intent to sell, and

PER CURIAM. The plaintiffs in error, F. E. Weete and Sam Johnson, were convicted on an information which charged the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors with the intent to violate provisions of the prohibitory law. On February 5, 1912, in accordance with the verdict of the jury, F. E. Weete was sentenced to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and pay a fine of $100, and Sam Johnson was sentenced to be confined for 30 days in the county jail and to pay a fine of $50. No brief has been filed. When the case was called for final submission, the Attorney General moved to affirm for failure to prosecute the peal. The motion to affirm is sustained, and the judgments of the county court of Tulsa county are affirmed, and the cause remanded thereto, with direction to enforce its judgments

therein.

ap

WILKERSON et al. v. STATE. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 7, 1913.) Appeal from District Court, Atoka County; R. M. Rainey, Judge. Joe Wilkerson and Richard Wilkerson were convicted of crime, and appeal. Dismissed.

PER CURIAM. Counsel for the plaintiffs in error, Linebaugh Bros. & Pinson and J. H. Gernert, have this day filed a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case. The motion is sustained, and the appeal accordingly dismissed.

WOOLIVER v. CITY OF MCALESTER. (Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma. June 7, 1913.) Appeal from County Court, Pittsburg County; B. P. Hammond, Judge. John Wooliver was convicted of violating a city ordinance, and appeals. Affirmed. J. G. Harley and Jas. R. Miller, both of McAlester, for plaintiff in error.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in error, John Wooliver, was tried and convicted in the police court of the city of McAlester on a charge

the county court, and on the trial anew was again convicted, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $75. There are some irregularities shown in the record, but upon the whole case we think the judgment is a proper one and should be affirmed. The judgment is affirmed, with direction to the lower court to enforce the

PER CURIAM. The appellants, who are stockholders in the Washington Meteor Mining Company, a corporation, brought this action against the respondents to try title to certain unpatented mining claims. The mining claims in question are in the possession of the respondent Blewett Mine Leasing Company, and title to the claims is asserted by that company. The action is predicated on fraud and deceit. It is alleged, in substance, that the property in question is the property of the Washington Meteor Mining Company, and that formerly the title to the several mining claims mentioned stood in its name, and that the individual defendants, while officers of the mining company, so manipulated its affairs as to fraudulently deprive that company of the legal title and vest such title in the leasing company. The questions involved are questions of fact. These received a painstaking examination by the court below, which reached the conclusion that fraud or deceit had not been proven. Our examination of the record has convinced us that this conclusion is just, and, as a review of the evidence would but incumber the records and serve no useful purpose, we direct that the judgment stand affirmed.