
    H. H. DELANO v. STATE.
    No. A-8802.
    March 22, 1935.
    Rehearing Denied May 3, 1935.
    (47 Pac. [2d] 213.)
    Lester & Briggs, for plaintiff in error.
    J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and J. H. Lawson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DAVENPORT, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to- as the defendant, was convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and sentenced tO‘ serve a year in the state penitentiary.

Burt Self, a witness for tbe state, in substance testified be lived near Seminole, Obla.; that be was shop foreman for tbe Seminole Supply Company, and bad. been for two and one-balf years. On August 9, 1933, the supply company lost eight boomers and chains of tbe value of $65 tO' $80. Tbe property was taken from the yards of the Seminole Supply Company. They were found tbe next morning in a field in a bunch of weeds on tbe opposite side of tbe road from tbe supply company bouse. Watch was kept over them, and some time that evening after dark tbe defendant drove up in a Packard car where the property was located, parked tbe car, and turned tbe lights out. The witness Self testified he got a shotgun and went out to tbe corner of tbe fence. The defendant made several trips into the field and loaded the chains and boomers into bis car. Tbe witness and defendant had some conversation, and defendant got into bis car and drove rapidly away. Witness fired his shotgun into tbe back end of tbe car but tbe defendant kept going. The witness secured tbe officers and went to tbe home of the defendant, where they found tbe car that bad been shot into. They did not find any of the stolen property.

Tbe defendant admitted he stopped near tbe place where the prosecuting witness testified he did, but stated be bad been to tbe home of a party who' owed him some money, and, as be was returning home, nature demanded him to stop, and be drove off the pavement for the purpose of getting out of sight, and denied he bad anything to do with tbe taking, or handling of the property taken from tbe supply company yard.

Virgil Stubbs was called as a witness, and testified the defendant came to bis bouse tbe evening of August 9, 1933, to collect some money be owed him; it was about 8 or 8:30 when be left. This is tbe substance of tbe testimony.

Tbe defendant in bis petition in error alleges several errors as grounds for reversal; tbe third assignment being: “That the verdict and judgment passed thereon was not supported by the evidence, and was and is contrary to law.”

Tbe defendant in bis argument discusses only tbe question of the evidence being insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment. Tbe testimony in this case is conflicting. Witness Self positively identifies the defendant as being the party who came and loaded tbe property in tbe car and went off with it.

In Pickett v. State, 35 Okla. Cr. 60, 248 Pac. 352, this court said: •

“Where tbe evidence and tbe reasonable and logical inferences and deductions to be drawn from it are sufficient to convince tbe jury beyond a reasonable doubt of tbe guilt of a defendant, this court will not disturb the verdict for insufficiency.”

In Choate v. tSate, 37 Okla. Cr. 314, 258 Pac. 360, this court held:

“Where there is competent evidence which reasonably sustains the verdict and judgment, a conviction will not be reversed, although the evidence may be conflicting or different inferences may be drawn from it.”

In Strong v. State, 42 Okla. Cr. 248, 275 Pac. 385, this court said:

“When the evidence disclosed by the record tends reasonably to support- the verdict of the jury, such verdict will not be disturbed by this court on appeal.”

In Campbell v. State, 23 Okla. Cr. 250, 214 Pac. 738, this court held:

“Conflicting issues of fact are for the sole determination of the jury. The conviction will not be disturbed on appeal because of sharp conflicts in the evidence, if the evidence adduced reasonably tends to support- the verdict and judgment.” Underwood v. State, 36 Okla. Cr. 21, 251 Pac. 507.

The testimony on behalf of the state is positive that the defendant is the man who' came and hauled the stolen property away, the evening after it had been stolen and located on adjoining property. The defendant denied he removed the property as stated by the witness for the state. The jury, in rendering its verdict, evidently believed the testimony of the defendant. This defendant was accorded a fair and impartial trial. The court correctly advised the jury as to the law applicable to the facts. There-are no errors in the record warranting a reversal.

The judgment is affirmed.

DOYLE, J., concurs. EDWARDS, J., not participating.  