THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EARL TAYLOR, Appellant

[Crim. No. 416. Third Appellate District. April 12, 1918.] THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EARL TAYLOR, Appellant. Criminal Law—Appeal—Presumptions.—On an appeal in a criminal action, the presumptions are in favor of the regularity of the proceedings in the trial court, and where no argument is made, and the court’s attention is not called to any ground for interfering with the judgment, the judgment will he affirmed. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Joaquin County. D. M. Young, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Walter F. Lynch, for Appellant. U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and J. Chas. Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent. [MAJORITY — THE COURT.] THE COURT. Defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property. His appeal was regularly taken but it has not been prosecuted. No argument has been made in his behalf in this court, and, therefore, our attention has not been called to any ground for interfering with the judgment of the lower court. The presumptions are, of course, in favor of the regularity of the proceedings in the court below. Moreover, an examination of the record discloses sufficient evidence to justify the verdict without prejudicial error being shown therein. (People v. Wagner, ante, p. 41, [171 Pac. 699].) The judgment and order are therefore affirmed.