
    Aaron Robinson v. State.
    189 So. 824
    Division A
    Opinion Filed June 13, 1939
    
      Clyde E. Mayhall, for Plaintiff in Error;
    
      George Couper Gibbs, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ellis, Assistant Attorney General, for Defendant in Error.
   Per Curiam. —

Writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of the larceny of a heifer.

The plaintiff in error challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment.

The entire record has been examined. The evidence is found sufficient to support the judgment and verdict and no reversible error is made to appear.

Therefore, the judgment should be, and is, affirmed.

So ordered.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.’

Chapman, J., dis'sents.

Justice Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

Chapman, J.

(dissenting). — The question here is the identity of the heifer. State’s witnesses testified the heifer was the property of Henson. The defendant’s witnesses testified the heifer was the property of Robinson. The parties had different views of the identity of the heifer based exclusively on the color of the heifer. She was not marked or branded. She was driven on the public road and killed and butchered in the day time under claim of ownership. See Heath v. State 97 Fla. 331. Welch v. State, 97 Fla. 456.  