dismissing the bill for want of equity, and this appeal has been prosecuted from that decree. Appellant contends that all the matters raised were adjudicated in Hooper v. Bank of Two Rivers, supra, and that under the holding in that case the decree dismissing the bill should be reversed. On the former appeal the only matter presented was the sufficiency of the bill, and it was there held that the pretended judgment set out in the bill was not a lien upon the premises of appellant. What was there said in reference to the liability of appellant to pay the amount remaining due on said judgment was said in reference only to the allegations contained in the bill. The present decree dismissing the bill was based upon the bill and answer and the proofs made thereunder, and presents an entirely different situation. The bill itself does not disclose any equities which appellee is entitled to have enforced, but such equities are disclosed by the answer and are fully shown by the proof. The testimony on the part of appellee shows conclusively that at the time of the sale by the trustee in bankruptcy this judgment was regarded and treated by appellant, as well as by the trustee and appellee, as a valid and subsisting lien upon the property and that the property was sold subject to this lien. It also appears that at that time appellant sought and received information as to the exact amount due upon the judgment, and that the amount remaining due upon the judgment was taken into consideration by him in making his bid for the property, and that that amount was, in fact, deducted from the value of the property when it was sold. The effect of this transaction was just the same as though appellant on that occasion had been given from the funds of the bankrupt's estate a sufficient sum of money to satisfy this judgment upon the condition that he would pay the amount remaining due appellee. Under such circumstances, having received the amount of this judgment from the estate of the bankrupt with the understanding and agreement that he should apply it by paying off the judgment in favor of appellee, appellant cannot now come into a court of equity and ask to have the lien of this judgment removed as a cloud on his title, and thus escape making the payment which in good conscience and fair dealing he is bound to make. To permit him to do so would be to enable him to appropriate to his own use property of the bankrupt's estate which he in good faith was bound to apply to the extinguishment of the debt due from the bankrupt to appellee. The familiar maxim, "He who seeks equity must do equity," applies in this case. Appellant contends that this is not an equitable proceeding but is purely statutory. Our statute simply enlarges the ancient equitable remedy in reference to bills to quiet title. Proceedings had under the enlarged jurisdiction of the court remain equitable and in their consideration and determination all the rules of equity apply. In Bennitt v. Star Mining Co. 119 Ill. 9, (a bill to quiet title and for injunction,) we held that as the complainants in the bill had voluntarily sought the aid of a court of equity they should be compelled to observe the requirements of the maxim we have just quoted. That this is an equitable proceeding is so well established that we deem the further citation of authorities unnecessary. The validity of the nunc pro tunc judgment is questioned and numerous reasons urged why it does not constitute a valid and subsisting lien. In the view we have taken it is immaterial whether a proper judgment was entered under the nunc pro tunc order. By virtue of the circumstances and conditions under which the appellant acquired title to the property in question he is not entitled to the relief he seeks in a court of equity, whether the judgment in question be, in fact, valid or invalid. The decree of the superior court is affirmed. Decree affirmed. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendant in Error, vs. W. A. HARRIS et al. Plaintiffs in Error. Opinion filed April 23, 1914—Rehearing denied June 4, 1914. I. CRIMINAL LAW-language of section 13 of Criminal Code is sufficient basis for arson indictment. Section 13 of the Criminal Code, which makes it arson to burn or cause to be burned certain specified buildings or other "building, the property of any other person," authorizes an indictment for burning, or causing to be burned, any building which is the property of another person. (People v. Covits, 262 Ill. 514, followed.) 2. SAME when an instruction with reference to conspiracy to commit arson is not objectionable. An instruction stating that "if you believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendants, or any of them, together or with others, prior to the fire in question entered into a conspiracy to commit the crime of arson as charged in the indictment, and you further believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that thereafter said conspirators, or any of them, pursuant to said conspiracy and in furtherance thereof, set fire to and burned said building as charged in said indictment, then such defendants, if any, as entered into said conspiracy, are guilty of the crime of arson," does not assume the fact of the conspiracy. (Bond v. People, 39 Ill. 26, distinguished.) 3. SAME when consent of owner to burning of building is not an issue. Where the charge in the indictment is the burning of the building of another person under section 13 of the Criminal Code, no issue can arise as to consent of the owner unless the accused seeks to acquit himself of criminal intent by proving that the owner consented to the burning, and as the want of such consent is not an element of the statutory definition of arson in Illinois, it is not necessary to aver in the indictment that the burning was without the consent of the owner of the building. 4. SAME when instruction does not direct jury to believe testimony of accomplice. An instruction stating that the jury are the judges of the credibility of an accomplice, and that while the testimony of an accomplice must be received with great caution, still, if the jury are convinced of its truth, they have a right to believe it and it is their duty to do so, is not subject to the objection that it directs the jury to believe and act on the truth of such testimony. 5. SAME-new trial will not be granted where alleged new evidence is merely cumulative. Affidavits directed mainly to discrediting a witness for the People in respect to a matter which was disputed on the trial are merely cumulative in their nature and do not present the character of newly discovered evidence which is necessary to authorize a new trial. 6. SAME the question of latitude of cross-examination rests largely with the court. The cross-examination of witnesses is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth of the matter under investigation and the latitude to be allowed rests largely in the discretion of the trial court, and unless there has been a clear abuse of such discretion the Supreme Court will not interfere. 7. SAME―when cross-examination as to defendant's knowledge of other fires is not error. If there is evidence, admitted without objection, that the fire which the defendants are charged with causing was postponed to await the result of another fire, it is not error to cross-examine the defendants as to their knowledge of such fire; and if one of the defendants is a brother of the persons who had another fire, although it is not connected in any way with the fire involved in the case on trial, it is not improper to inquire of him as to his knowledge of such fire. WRIT OF ERROR to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. RICHARD E. BURKE, Judge, presiding. SABATH, LEVINSON & STAFFORD, (WILLIAM S. FORREST, and CHARLES B. STAFFORD, of counsel,) for plaintiffs in error. P. J. LUCEY, Attorney General, MACLAY HOYNE, State's Attorney, and C. H. LINSCOTT, (FRANK JOHNston, Jr., and EVERETT JENNINGS, of counsel,) for the People. Mr. JUSTICE VICKERS delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiffs in error, W. A. Harris and Max Covitz, were found guilty by a jury in the criminal court of Cook county, at the August term, 1913, of the crime of arson, and after overruling motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment the court entered a judgment of guilty and sentenced plaintiffs in error to imprisonment in the penitentiary at Joliet under the Indeterminate Sentence law. This writ of error is sued out to bring the record of their conviction up for review by this court. The first count of the indictment upon which plaintiffs in error were tried, charged that W. A. Harris, (whose first name is to the grand jurors unknown,) Max Covitz, Morris Nudelman, Harry Brown, Julius Zar and John Danies, (otherwise called John Kubitz, alias John Kubiczek,) on the 13th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1910, in said county of Cook, State of Illinois, aforesaid, unlawfully, feloniously, willfully and maliciously did burn a certain building there situate in said county of Cook and State of Illinois, aforesaid, then and there being the property of Solomon Fischman, contrary to the statute, etc. The second and third counts of the indictment were similar to the first, except that they charged the defendants with causing said building to be burned. Plaintiffs in error, Harris and Covitz, were the only defendants put upon trial in this case. Defendants Brown, Zar and Danies were witnesses on behalf of the People. Nudelman was granted a separate trial. Plaintiffs in error were retail merchants, with a store located at 1232 Milwaukee avenue, in the city of Chicago, in which was carried a stock of ladies' wearing apparel. The building consisted of three stories and a basement. Plaintiffs in error's store occupied the first floor. The second and third stories were occupied by a person to whom plaintiffs in error had made a lease and were used by said lessee as a restaurant. The fee simple title of the premises was in Solomon Fischman. Plaintiffs in error were The fire occurred about his tenants under a five-year lease. Plaintiffs in error entered a motion to quash the indictment. At the close of the evidence for the People, and again at the close of all the evidence, each plaintiff in error moved the court to direct the jury to find him not guilty. After the verdict each plaintiff in error moved to set aside the verdict as to him and to grant him a new trial, and filed numerous affidavits in support of said motion. No specific grounds were assigned either for the motion to quash the |