
    STATE v. WILLIAM EDMONS.
    
    January 28, 1916.
    Nos. 19,475—(12).
    Criminal law — intent — new trial.
    Conviction of defendant for grand larceny. Held: The evidence of criminal intent was so doubtful as to require a new trial. [Reporter.]
    Defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Nicollet county for the crime of grand larceny in the second degree, was tried before Olsen, J„ and a jury and found guilty as charged in the indictment. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.
    Reversed.
    
      Thomas Hessian, for appellant.
    
      Lyndon A. Smith, Attorney General, and George T. Olson, County Attorney, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 156 N. W. 1086.
    
   Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted .of grand larceny, and appealed from an order denying a new trial. A careful consideration of the record leads to the conclusion that no errors were committed on the trial, the instructions to the jury are not open to criticism, but a majority of the court are of opinion that the evidence of the criminal intent is so far doubtful as to require in the interests of justice the submission of the question to another jury. We therefore reverse the order appealed from and remand the cause for a new trial.

Order reversed.  