
    14306.
    PINKNEY v. THE STATE.
    The evidence by which it was attempted to identify as the stolen property the hay and peas found at the house of the accused was too uncertain to show his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis; and the conviction must be set aside as being unsupported by the evidence. (Bloodworth, J., dissents.)
    Decided April 11, 1923.
    Indictment for larceny from house; from Liberty superior court — Judge Sheppard. January 5, 1923.
    
      Darsey & Mills, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. Saxton Daniel, solicitor-general, contra.
   Bloodworth, J.

I am authorized by a majority of the court to -announce the following as their opinion in this case: The prosecutor had some hay and peas stolen from his barn. He found hay and peas like his at the defendant’s house, but his identification of these as his property was too vague and general to show beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis the guilt of the defendant. The prosecutor swore, in substance, that he knew they were his peas and hay, because they were the same kind. He also said that the peas were in his sack, but he admitted that there were other sacks just like it. It was also undisputed that the defendant’s wife had been given similar peas as toll by the prosecutor, and that she had raised hay on the defendant’s place.” The writer thinks there is some evidence to support the verdict, and it, having been approved by the trial judge, should not be disturbed.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J.,' and Dulce, J., concur. Bloodworth, J., dissents.  