
    W. F. Scott v. The State.
    No. 12277.
    Delivered January 30, 1929.
    Rehearing denied March 6, 1929.
    The opinion states the case.
    No brief filed for appellant.
    
      A. A. Dawson of Canton, State’s Attorney, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, Judge.

— Conviction for burglary; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

We find no bills of exception in this record. The statement of facts shows that a drug store was burglarized, and that shortly thereafter property taken from said drug store was found in appellant’s possession. The fact of such possession when not properly explained, has often been held sufficient to justify the conviction of the party so found in possession thereof, for theft or burglary.

There being no error of procedure complained of in this trial, and believing the facts justified the verdict, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

HAWKINS, Judge.

— Appellant claims in his motion for rehearing that he made an explanation of his possession of the property taken from the burglarized store which entitled him to an instruction on that issue. No objection was presented complaining of any omission of such instruction from the charge, neither was any special charge on that subject requested. Appellant’s defense was an alibi which the court properly submitted. Doubtless appellant would have been acquitted had the jury given credence to his evidence on ' (hat issue.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.  