
    People, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Girón, Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from the District Court of Mayagüez in a Prosecution for a Crime Against Public Justice.
    No. 1105.
    Decided March 19, 1917.
    Public Justice — -Assault and Battery — Variance Between Information and Evidence. — Although there may be a variance between the information and the evidence in this ease in that the former charged assault and battery in the café while the latter showed that it occurred in the street, as the events which led up to the offense took place in the café and were in such close spiritual and physical connection therewith that it would be impossible for the defendant not to be able to identify the crime, it was held that said variance was neither material nor prejudicial and that the defendant was not misled.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Messrs. Feliú & Alemcmy for the appellant.
    
      Mr. Salvador Mestre, fiscal, for Tho People.
   Me. Justice Wole

delivered the opinion of the court.

The only difference between the legal aspect in this ease and that of The People v. Girón, No. 1104, just decided, is that the defendant struck the prosecuting witness, Moreda, outside the café when Moreda, owner of said café, was protesting against the assault on Bischoff. The information charged an offense in the café “La Palma.” The principal idea of mentioning a place is to show jurisdiction of the offense. It is a subsidiary matter to describe the place in order that the defendant may identify the crime with which he is charged. Novi, while there may be cases in which such a variance would be material and prejudicial, it could not be so in this case. The events which led up'to the offense took place within the café, and, as in the case just decided, weie in such close spiritual and physical connection that it would be impossible for tbe defendant not to be able to identify tbe crime. A notice is generally sufficient if its object cannot be mistaken, and under tbe proof in this case tbe defendant was in nowise misled.

■ Tbe judgment must be

Affirmed.

( bief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.  