
    THE PEOPLE v. McLANE.
    
      Query : whether in a criminal case, evidence of general reputation is admissible to prove that the locus delicti is within the county where the indictment was found.
    In this case, the locus was proven by other evidence to be within the county; and hence defendant cannot avail himself of the error, if any, of admitting proof by general reputation.
    Appeal from the Eleventh District.
    Defendant was indicted in the Court of Sessions of El Dorado for arson, charged to consist in the burning of a barn in that county. The barn was in what is known as Lake Valley. On the trial, a diagram of the locality of the barn was introduced; and one Taylor, a witness for the prosecution, stated that he had resided in Lake Valley since 1859. The District Attorney then asked him: “ In what county is the tract of country in which this barn is situated, and which is represented on the diagram ? ” Answer : “ In this county; it is so considered.” Defendant objected to the latter clause of the answer for incompetency and irrelevancy. Overruled; defendant excepting. This witness and others were then permitted, defendant excepting, to state that Lake Valley and this barn are generally supposed by people there to be in El Dorado county.
    There was other evidence by the surveyor, who surveyed the eastern boundary of California under the direction of the Surveyor General of the State, and other persons, tending to fix the locus within this State, and within El Dorado. Defendant, being convicted, appeals.
    
      J. B. Harmon, for Appellant, made the point, that, in a criminal case, the locus of the crime cannot be proved to be within the jurisdiction of the Court by general reputation.
    
      Thos. H. Williams, Attorney General, for Respondent, cited 2 Russell on Crimes, 767, to the point that boundaries of counties may be proven by hearsay ; and further argued, that, aside from the proof by reputation, there was proof in the record that the locus was within the county.
   Cope, J.

delivered the following opinion:

The defendant was convicted of the crime of arson, charged to have been committed within the county of El Dorado. On the trial of the case, evidence of general reputation was admitted to show that the locus delicti was in that county. The admission of this evidence is assigned as error, and if the defendant could have been prejudiced by it, we should be disposed to regard the objection as fatal. But the fact was established by other evidence, and the defendant cannot avail himself of the error as a ground of reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

Field, C. J. and Baldwin, J. J.—We concur in the judgment.  