
    People of the State of New York, Resp’t, v. Charles J. Everhardt, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed December 30, 1886.)
    
    1. Criminal trial—Form op oath op jurors and. witnesses—Aliases— When may be omitted in swearing jurors and witnesses.
    At the trial of the defendant, indicted under another name and four aliases, his true name was given, and the indictment was amended by the insertion of that name w tn reference to the aliases, under which he was originally indicted, and after this was done the court permitted the swearing of jurors and witnesses, using the true name and five al oses in the form of the oath, which was excepted to. It eld, that the excip ion was not well taken; that although thure was no legal necessity for calling off the aliases, and it would be better practice not to co it when the pri oner had given his true name, it is not an error to allow it to be done, of which a prisoner can avail himself by exception.
    3. Same—Evidence op accomplice—How par must be corroborated.
    It is not necessary that the corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice should be full and complete to an extent that would itself warrant conviction. It ia enough that it corroborates material parts of the testi- • many relating to the cm'pus of the offense in such a way that the jury are justified thereby in accepting the evidence of the accomplice as true.
    3. Same—Jurisdiction—When not lost by adjournment sine die by COURT OF SESSIONS.
    Where before the adjournment of the court of sessions, the prisoner’s counsel made a motion for a new trial and for arrest of judgment, which motion was pending when the adjournment was made, and this motion was made and denied at the next term, and therea ter sentence was pro- . bounced. Held, the court had not lost jurisdiction. Whether the teim of the court of sessions a continuous one, Querm.
    
    Appeal from judgment of the sessions.
    
      A'. Stiydam, for app’lt; McKenzie Semple, for resp’ts.
   Davis, P. J.

The prisoner was indicted by the name of George Hartman and four aliases. At the trial his counsel gave the name Charles J. Everhardt as the genuine name of the prisoner. The court then directed the indictment minutes so to be amended by the insertion of that name with reference to the aliases under which he was originally indicted. After this had been done the court permitted the swearing of jurors and witnesses by using the name Everhardt and the five abases in the form of the oath. This was objected to by the prisoner’s counsel on the ground that it tended to prejudice him in the minds of the jury to have so many abases called off in their hearing whenever a juror or witness was sworn.

Some persons cabed as jurors said that they were prejudiced by the calbng of the abases. Those persons were not abowed to sit on the trial of the case.

The exception was not web taken. There was no legal necessity for calbng off the abases, and it would we think be better practice not to do it when a prisoner has given his true name and the record has been amended accordingly; but stib the calbng off of ab the abases is simply a recital of the record as it stands before the court and it is not an error to abow it to be done, of which a prisoner can avail himself by exception. If a juror had sworn that he could not fairly and impartially try the case by reason of a prejudice from hearing ,the numerous abases, and had .been abowed to sit against the prisoner’s objection, or challenge, that would present a very different question.

None, however, is presented by the present condition of the case which demands interference with the conviction and judgment.

It is urged that there was not sufficient corroboration of the testimony of the accompbce pointing to the gubt of the accused to justify a conviction. It is not necessary that such corroboration should be full and complete to an extent that would itself warrant conviction. It is enough that it corroborates material parts of the testimony relating to the corpus of the offence in such a way that the jury are justified thereby in accepting the evidence of the accompbce as true. That kind of corroboration was given in this case. Proof was given of visits by the prisoner to the office of the parties on whom the forgery was committed, under a false pretence, and the obtaining of an opportunity to look at these cancelled checks and the disappearance of a portion of such checks simultaneously with that of the prisoner. The testimony of the wife of the accompbce showing several incidents tending to connect the prisoner with the act of presenting the check for the joint benefit of himself and the accompbce was reasonably corroborative of the testimony of the accompbce, which connected the prisoner with the criminal transaction. There was enough on that subject to go to the jury.

It is urged "also that the court had lost jurisdiction by adjourning the term sine die before pronouncing sentence. But when the adjournment took place there was a motion pending on the part of the prisoner for a new trial and for arrest of judgment. This motion was made by the prisoners counsel at the next term and after its denial sentence was pronounced. This fact is an answer to the point, even if the court of sessions is not to be deemed a continuous one. The act of the prisoner caused the delay. It was a favor to him granted at his request to postpone sentence in order that he might move for new trial. Having availed himself of the favor it does not He in his mouth to urge the delay as a loss of jurisdiction to pronounce sentence.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Brady, J., concurs.  