
    [No. 10,913.
    Department Two,
    April 1, 1884.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. ROBERT ROBINSON, Appellant.
    CBmrau, Law—Robbery—Instructions.—The defendant was charged with the crime of robbery, and the court instructed the jury as follows: “You may find a verdict against the defendant, guilty as charged in the indictment, of the crime of robbery, or you may find a verdict of grand larceny, or you may find a verdict of acquittal, as you may deem proper under the instructions which I have given.” The jury were not told that they could not find any other verdict, and the court was not requested to instruct them that they could. Held, that the instruction was not erroneous.
    Id.—Ibkegulabities. — When the jury were leaving the court-room for consultation, the clerk, without the knowledge of the court, or consent of the defendant, handed them three forms of verdict corresponding to those mentioned in the instructions, and they returned one of them —finding the defendant guilty of grand larceny; held, not erroneous or irregular.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, and in the head-note.
    
      John D. Whaley, for Appellant.
    
      Attorney-General Marshall, for Respondent.
   Sharpstein, J.

The court did not, as appellant’s counsel claims, “charge the jury that under the information their verdict must be either guilty of robbery, guilty of grand larceny, or not guilty ”j but did charge them that they might find a verdict of guilty of either of the offenses above specified, or might find a verdict of acquittal, as they deemed proper. The jury were not told that they could not find any other verdict, and the court was not requested to charge them that they could.

It appears that when the jury were leaving the court-room on their way to the jury-room the clerk handed them three forms of verdict corresponding to those mentioned, and that they returned one of them as their verdict. That is, they found the defendant guilty of grand larceny. This does not, in our opinion, constitute an error, or even an irregularity.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Thornton, J., and Myrick, J., concurred.  