
    [Crim. No. 1174.
    Department Two.
    January 31, 1905.]
    THE PEOPLE, Appellant, v. LAURA HILL, Respondent.
    Criminal Law—Bribery—Acquittal—Advice to Jury — Jeopardy— Appeal by People—Affirmance.—Upon a charge of bribery where a trial was had, and at the close of the evidence the court advised and directed the jury to acquit for want of sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, whereupon the jury rendered a verdict of not guilty, jeopardy has attached, and there cannot be another trial for the same offense; and upon appeal by the people from the order of the court advising and directing the jury to acquit, the order will be affirmed, without reference to the merits of the questions discussed by the appellant.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County advising and directing the jury to acquit the defendant. B. N. Smith, Judge.
    
      The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, J. D. Fredericks, District Attorney, and C. C. Comas, Deputy District Attorney, for Appellant.
    Emmet H. Wilson, and Yoakum & Spencer, for Respondent.
   McFARLAND, J.

Defendant was charged in the information with a felony,—to wit, an attempt to bribe a witness, contrary to the provisions of section 137 of the Penal Code. The defendant pleaded not guilty; a trial was had on the issue; evidence was introduced by both parties, and after it was all in and the parties had rested, the court advised and directed the jury to find for defendant upon the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant a conviction. Thereupon the jury rendered a verdict of not guilty. The people appeal from the order advising and directing the jury to acquit.

The respondent was tried on a valid information, in a court of competent jurisdiction, and was acquitted by the verdict of the jury. “Jeopardy” therefore attached, and respondent cannot again be tried for the said alleged crime. Under these circumstances, and as held in prior decisions of this court, it would be a vain thing to consider the general questions discussed by appellant. (People v. Horn, 70 Cal. 17; People v. Roberts, 114 Cal. 67; People v. Terrill, 132 Cal. 497.) In the eases just cited the orders appealed from were affirmed, and we will follow that course here.

The order apealed from is affirmed.

Lorigan, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred.  