TWO DECISIONS.The Issues Raised by One Convicted of Murder.Irregularities, but Not Sufficient toDisturb tiie Verdict—A NevadaCounty Case.The SuDreme Court yesterday filed its decisions in Deputy Clerk Govan’s office in the case of the People vs. James W.8mailing ;appellant).Smalling was convicted of murder in the first degree, with punishment fixed at imprisonment for life, and appealed from tiie judgment, relying upon the following assigned errors of the law:First—The court erred in admitting in evidence the written confession of defendant, under objection.Second—The court erred in excluding exhibit “IT* from tiie jury, it being evi- ; deuce of what occurred on the discharge of the jury at the first trial of the action i tli and in sustaining the people’s objection j ylt; thereto. * ■ i caThird—The court erred in denying de- tlt;Jtfcfendant's motion to be discharged from i G( custody and in pronouncing judgment. lt;; I Fourth—The court erred in instructing ! tfcthe jury to find lor tlie people upon the ! ctpleas of former acquittal, former con vie- w j tiou and former jeopardy. i stI Alter going over the'circumstances of j, the case at great length, and citing various eases, the Supreme Court says: “Therecord clearly shows that irregularitiesPexisted in the manner in which these ver-rlt;diets were returned into court—irregulari- 1S ties occasioned without necessity and Qwhich could have been easily avoided. 0 In cases of felony, and especially where a |defendant is charged with the crime of t] murder, the only correct procedure is to ; *] adhere strictly to the statute. Any other n course is a dangerous innovation, which t generally results in a miscarriage of ^ justice. M“We think the irregularities here shown ; do not effect the validity of the judgment j s and are such as come squarely within the b provisions of the Penal Code cited. The 1judgment of the lower court is affirmed.” (A NEVADA COUNTY CASE. t.l