IN THE

SUPREME COURT

OF THE

STATE OF IDAHO.

(April 5, 1916.)

STATE, Respondent, v. FRANK W. ANDRUS, Appellant. [156 Pac. 421.].

CRIMINAL LAW-PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION-INCEST-INFORMATIONEVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY-CORROBORATION.

1. The jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, sitting as a committing magistrate, extends throughout the county, and such a magistrate with whom a criminal complaint is filed charging that a felony or an indictable misdemeanor has been committed, and who entertains the complaint and issues a warrant for the arrest of the accused, thereby acquires jurisdiction to hold a preliminary examination of such charge and cannot be ousted therefrom by the officer who makes the arrest.

2. The right to a preliminary examination is one which the accused may waive, and when a defendant is arrested and is taken before a magistrate, other than the one who issued the warrant, in the county wherein the crime is alleged to have been committed, and fails to make objection, but waives his preliminary examination, his right to be taken before the magistrate who issued the warrant is waived.

3. An indictment or information must contain a statement of the acts constituting the offense in ordinary and concise language, and in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended to be charged thereby. No indictment or information will be held to be insufficient, by reason of any defect or imperfection in matter of form, which does not tend to the prejudice of a substantial right of the accused upon its merits.

4. Where no showing has been made that an act of sexual intercourse had been recently committed, or attempted, upon the prosecutrix, and no attempt has been made to impeach her testimony, it is error to permit the prosecution, as a part of its case in chief, to introduce evidence in detail of a complaint made by her to third Idaho, Vol. 29-1 (1)