
    The People v. James Carroll.
    
      Burglary — Possession of stolen goods.
    
    Possession of stolen goods may be shown, in connection with other evidence, upon a prosecution for burglary.
    Exceptions from the Superior Court of Grand Rapids. (Parrish, J.)
    June 19.
    — June 25.
    Burglary. Respondent was convicted below.
    Affirmed.
    Attorney General Van Riper for the People.
    “Possession alone, unsupported by other facts indicative of guilt, would not be prima facie evidence of burglary, but when taken and considered with other evidence in the case, it might be sufficient:” Stuart v. People 42 Mich. 261.
    
      Emil A. Dapper for respondent.
   Sherwood, J.

The respondent was convicted of burglary ■and larceny in the Superior Court at Grand Bapids. The record contains a bill of exceptions but does not purport to give all the testimony.

On the trial, the counsel for the People gave testimony tending to show that the money stolen was found upon the person of the respondent. This was objected to by the respondent’s counsel, on the ground that possession of stolen property was not evidence of burglary. The testimony was admitted in the case, and exception was taken. It was proper testimony to be given with other evidence in the ■case, to prove the respondent guilty of the crime charged, ¡and no error was committed in receiving it. It is only necessary to say further, that the other objections and exceptions of counsel for respondent were not well taken, and need not be further considered.

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.  