
    The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Monagas, Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan, Section 2, in a prosecution for selling lottery tickets.
    No. 669.
    Decided April 15, 1914.
    Evidence — Findings oe Trial Court. — The findings of the trial court will not be reversed on appeal on the ground of the improbability of the testimony of the witnesses when no partiality or passion is shown to have existed.
    Xd. — Lottery Tickets. — In view of the circumstances of this case, it was held that the admission in evidence of other lottery tickets seized in the house of the accused was corroborative evidence and that the court did not err in admitting the same.
    Id. — Dnpkejudicial Error. — The evidence admitted against the accused being strong, he is not prejudiced even supposing that the court committed error in admitting the evidence to which objection was made in this case.
    Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.
    
      Mr. Charles E. Foote, fiscal, for Tbe People.
    
      Mr. Antonio Trujillo for appellant.
   Mb. Justice Wole

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court.

Two errors are alleged by tbe appellant. Tbe first is that tbe proof is insufficient. There was proof on tbe part of a police officer to tbe effect that be saw tbe defendant sell a lottery ticket to Pedro Rendón and tbe latter also took tbe stand and said that the defendant had sold him the ticket. The appellant seeks to attack these declarations on the ground of their inherent improbability, but they were believed by the court and there is no partiality or other undue element shown.

The second ground of error is the admission of the testimony of the witnesses showing that two other lottery tickets were found on the premises. The testimony of one of the witnesses showed that the defendant put his hand behind a screen to draw out a ticket and that afterwards two tickets of the same lottery and the same drawing were found there. Under the circumstances this was corroborative evidence.

Furthermore, given the strong direct evidence of the government witnesses, the defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the evidence to which objection was made.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro and Aldrey concurred.  