property was offered at a prior date. The deed in this case was in strict conformity with the form prescribed by statute where the property is stricken off to the county, yet the court held it void from its own recitals for the reasons stated. Upon the authority of that case, we must hold the deed in this case void, because it shows from its own recitals that at a tax sale begun October 5, 1896, the property was stricken off to the county on October 31, 1896. This renders the deed void, because its own recitals show that the property was sold to the county the first and only day it was offered, and the court. committed no error in excluding it.

There is still another reason why the ruling of the court was correct. The tax sale was October 31, 1896; the assignment of the certificate was June 5, 1900, more than three years after the tax sale. We have repeatedly held, that the county clerk could make no assignment of a certificate after three years from the date thereof. Affirmed.

cur.

CHIEF JUSTICE CAMPBELL and Mr. JUSTICE MUSSER CON

[No. 7196.]

PRIOR V. THE PEOPLE.

1. CRIMINAL LAW-Recognizance-A recognizance which in describing the offense charged, follows the designation given by the statute, is sufficient, e. g., a recognizance which recites that the principal cognizor was brought before the magistrate, "upon charge of a confidence game."

2. CASES OVERRULED-Distinguished People, 4 Colo. App. 97, distinguished.

or

Explained-Waters

Error to Denver District Court.-Hon. HUBERT L.

SHATTUCK, Judge.

Mr. GRANT L. HUDSON, for plaintiff in error.

Henry B. McDowell was charged with the commission of the crime of confidence game by an information filed by the district attorney before C. J. Gavin, a justice of the peace. McDowell entered into a recognizance, with the plaintiff in error as surety for his appearance before the justice at a time specified, which was duly accepted and approved. This obligation recited, inter alia, that "The condition of the above recognizance is such, that, whereas, the above bounden Henry B. McDowell was, on the second day of April, A. D. 1909, brought before the said C. J. Gavin, justice of the peace as aforesaid, upon a charge of a confidence game, and the hearing upon said charge being this day, upon application of the said Henry B. McDowell, continued to the fifth day of April, A. D. 1909, at 9:30 o'clock of that day, and the said C. J. Gavin, justice of the peace as aforesaid, did order and require that the above bounden Henry B. McDowell give bail with good and sufficient security in the sum of five hundred dollars, for his appearance at the justice's court of the said C. J. Gavin, justice of the peace as aforesaid, conditioned according to law." The obligation then provided that if McDowell appeared as required at the time and place specified, it was to be void; otherwise, in full force and effect.

McDowell failed to appear, and the recognizance was duly forfeited. Thereafter suit was brought thereon. In the complaint the obligation was set out haec verba. In his answer the defendant surety denied certain allegations of the complaint, and further denied that he was indebted on the bond, for the reason that it was void and of no effect, in that it did not appear upon its face to charge the principal obligor with any criminal offense known to the law. The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of the people, to review which the surety has brought the case here for review on error.

Mr. JUSTICE GABBERT delivered the opinion of the court:

The only proposition urged by counsel for plaintiff in error is, that the recognizance is void and of no effect, for the

reason that it fails upon its face to either designate or describe any crime known to the law. When an offense is designated by statute by name, it is sufficient to so designate it in a recognizance. Marmeduke v. People, 45 Colo. 357. Our criminal statutes secs. 1332-1333, Mills'-name and recognize confidence game as an offense.

Waters v. People, 4 C. A. 97, is not in point. In that case, the recognizance considered neither designated an offense known to the law, nor stated facts from which it appeared that a criminal offense had been committed.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

CHIEF JUSTICE CAMPBELL and Mr. JUSTICE HILL con

cur.

[No. 7344.]

WALCH V. ORRELL.

CONTEMPT Concealment of Will-A judgment of conviction under Rev. Stat. sec. 7080, imposing a fine and committing the accused to jail, cannot be supported where no evidence was produced that the alleged testator ever made a will, or if so, that it ever came to the hands of the accused.

Error to Clear Creek County Court.-Hon. WALTER S. HOBBS, Judge.

Messrs. VAILE, MCALLISTER & VAILE and Mr. W. S. MCGINTIE, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. JUSTICE GABBERT delivered the opinion of the court:

Defendant in error filed a complaint in which he alleged that he had reason to believe, and that there was good reason to believe, that the plaintiff in error had in her possession and under her control the last will of William T. Jacoby, deceased; and that she had secreted and wilfully withheld the same. In

the complaint it was prayed that an attachment be issued for plaintiff in error, and that upon her arrest she should be examined touching the matters alleged in the complaint; that the court should hear other evidence touching such matters, and if it should appear that she had in her possession and wilfully withheld the will mentioned, that she be punished as for contempt of court by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment until she should produce such will, or account therefor to the satisfaction of the court. This proceeding was evidently instituted by virtue of the provisions of sec. 7080, R. S., 1908, which provides that if any credible person shall file with the county court his complaint, on oath, stating that any person has in his possession, or that there is good reason to believe that such person has in his possession, the last will of any deceased person whereof such court has jurisdiction to receive the probate, and secretes or wilfully withholds the same, that an attachment shall issue against the person so alleged to withhold or secrete such will, and, upon the arrest of the person so accused, the court may examine him touching the question of possession of the will, and may hear other evidence on the matter, and if it should appear that the person so charged has in his possession and wilfully withholds such will, he shall be punished as for contempt of court by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment until he shall produce the will, or account therefore to the satisfaction of the

court.

Upon the foregoing complaint, an attachment was issued for plaintiff in error, who was arrested and brought before the court. Evidence was heard touching the matters alleged in the complaint, from which the court found that the defendant withholds the last will and testament of William T. Jacoby, deceased, and ordered that she pay a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars, and be committed to the county jail, there to re main until she produced and placed in the hands of the judge or acting clerk of the court the last will and testament of the deceased, or until the further order of the court.

Before the court could render this judgment, it was certainly necessary that the testimony adduced at the trial be sufficient to sustain the finding of facts upon which it was predicated. It is unnecessary to refer to the evidence specifically, or attempt to give a synopsis of it in detail, it being sufficient to say that there is not a word of testimony from which it appears that Jacoby ever made a will, or that plaintiff in error ever had possession of such an instrument.

The judgment of the county court is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the proceeding. Reversed and Remanded with Directions.

cur.

CHIEF JUSTICE CAMPBELL and Mr. JUSTICE HILL CON

[No. 7372.]

HELD V. HOUSER.

1. REGISTRATION OF TITLES-Application-What Land May Be Included-Several tracts situated in the same county, claimed by the same party, and under the same chain of title, may be included in one application for the reigstration of the title under the statute (Rev. Stat. c. 28), even though not contiguous.

Lands held only by tax deed, the title having been quieted in an action instituted within one year of the execution of the deed, may be included.

He

Nothing in the statute (Rev. Stat. sec. 5733) requires one holding under a tax deed to delay his action to confirm or quiet his title. may institute his action at any time after receiving his deed.

2. LIMITATIONS-Land Sold for Taxes-Five Year Statutes-Notwithstanding the provisions of sec. 5733 of the Revised Statutes, one claiming lands under a treasurer's deed may sue to quiet his title, at any time after receiving his deed.

3. JUDGMENT-Who Concluded-Bill to Quiet Title to Lands-One holding title as trustee merely is named as defendant in the action, in his individual capacity. The decree affects only his personal right, and not his estate as trustee.