
    9507.
    CLARK v. THE STATE.
    The evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to sustain the verdict, • and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
    Decided April 2, 1918.
    Indictment for larceny of cow; from Mitchell superior court— Judge Harrell. June 9, 1917.
    
      Johnson & Warren, for plaintiff in error.
    
      B. G. Bell, solicitor-general, F. A. Hooper, contra.
   Harwell, J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for stealing a cow belonging to the farm of Jackson Brothers. The State’s evidence showed that the cow described in the indictment was missing, and was found in the possession of one McDaniel; and he testified that he bought the cow from one Bozeman. Bozeman testified that he (Bozeman) bought the cow from the defendant, and gave him $10 for her. The defendant made no statement in explanation of his possession. The_only ’ witness introduced by the defendant testified that the cow that he saw the defendant put in Bozeman’s pasture was of a description different from that given in the indictment. The motion for a new trial was based upon the general' grounds only. It is not necessary to add anything further to the headnote.

Judgment affirmed.

'Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.  