
    The People, Resp’ts, v. Schihiok Jugigo, App’lt.
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed October 7, 1890.)
    
    3Iubdeb—Appeal.
    Defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree. ITo exception was taken on the trial. Held, that the evidence was sufiicient to establish the commission of the crime, and that a new trial would not be granted.
    Appeal from judgment of the court of oyer and terminer in the city and county of New York, convicting defendant of the ■crime of murder in the first degree, for killing one Mura Commi.
    Both the deceased and the defendant were Japanese sailors, and the scene of the crime was a sailor’s hoarding house, kept by one Eymoto. Both were waiting for employment on vessels, and each was anxious to go to sea, A short time before the crime was committed, Eymoto informed the deceased that he had procured a position for him in a vessel which was to sail in a day or two. Defendant became incensed that deceased should obtain the position instead of himself, and quarrelled with the deceased. He was stopped by Eymoto, and left the room, but shortly thereafter returned with a knife, with which he stabbed and killed the deceased, who was lying on a table.
    Defendant testified that the occupants of the room were engaged in gambling, and Mura Commi was banker, and sat upon the table; that defendant was intoxicated and tottered towards deceased who struck him on the head, causing him to fall; that when he arose, deceased held a hammer which he threatened to strike defendant with; that defendant then put his hand in a chest of tools, and took out a knife; that he did not attempt to kill him, but as he was very drunk, he killed him accidentally.
    
      John R. Heinzelman, for app’lt; McKenzie Semple, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree in the oyer and terminer in the city of New York. He has appealed to this court The record does not contain a single exception, and we are unable to perceive any reason for bringing the appeal except to delay the execution of the judgment. The evidence established, beyond any doubt, the commission of the crime, and the charge of the judge was fair and properly instructed the jury upon the law needful for their guidance.

There can be no pretense for saying that the ends of justice require a new trial, and the judgment should be affirmed.

All concur.  