
    State of Minnesota vs. Emanuel Green.
    November 26, 1884.
    Criminal Law. — A conviction of larceny in a municipal court is not affected by a “finding of facts” subsequently filed by the judge, though such facts are insufficient to constitute an offence.
    The defendant was convicted of the crime of larceny in the municipal court of Minneapolis, on trial by the court without a jury, on January 25,1884. He gave notice of a motion for a new trial, which was heard February 12, 1884. On March 3, 1884, the court filed “findings of fact” and an order refusing a new trial. ' These findings are claimed by defendant not to show facts sufficient to constitute the crime of larceny. The record does not contain the evidence. Defendant appeals from the judgment, which was entered April 30, 1884.
    
      J. E. Flanigan and Albert Knittle, for appellant.
    
      William J. Hahn, Attorney General, for the State.
   By the Court.

Upon trial before the municipal court without a jury, the defendant having been convicted of the crime of larceny, such conviction was not affected by the making and filing, several weeks afterwards, by the judge of that court, of a statement denominated by him “findings of fact” which did not set forth facts sufficient to constitute an offence. The finding of facts, if intended as such, subsequent to the conviction, was unauthorized, and the conviction is not referable to it.

Judgment affirmed.  