GONZALEZ V. CANAL ZONE. The effect of a judgment of any other tribunal of a foreign country having jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment is as follows: First. In case of a judgment against a specific thing, the judgment is conclusive upon the title to the thing. Irrespective of any direct provision of law authorizing an action to be brought in the courts of the Canal Zone upon the judgment of a foreign court we think such action could be brought for the purpose of making the judgment of a foreign court the judgment of the courts of the Canal Zone. The right to sue upon a foreign judgment would seem to follow necessarily in order to give effect to the provisions of section 328, and, if such an action were brought the introduction of a properly authenticated copy of a foreign judgment would, pursuant to section 328, establish conclusively the issues of the action so brought. Moreover, the plaintiffs-appellants have, for a long time, submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of Panama, and must, therefore, be held to be estopped from raising the question of want of jurisdiction of said courts. It follows that the judgment of the court below sustaining the plea to the jurisdiction must be affirmed, and the motion of the defendants filed herein to dismiss the appeal and to affirm the judgment of the lower court is hereby granted, with costs against appellants in both courts. Affirmed. GONZALEZ versus CANAL ZONE. No. 84. Argued December 4, 1911. Decided January 8, 1912. APPEALS FROM DISTRICT COURT. FORMER JEOPARDY. A defendant in a criminal case who appeals from a finding of guilty and conviction in the District Court is estopped from raising a plea of former jeopardy upon being charged with a higher degree of the same offense in the Circuit Court. TRIAL DE NOVO. By section 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case of appeals from the District Court to the Circuit Court, the trial in the latter court shall be de novo. This means that the parties, after such appeal, are placed in the same position as though there had been no former trial. Writ of error from the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Hon. H. A. Gudger, Judge. The facts appear in the opinion 157