
    Sewell vs. The State of Georgia,
    The evidence in this case was ample to sustain the conviction; and there was no error in the charge that if the prisoner fled, his flight was a circumstance that could be considered by the jury in determining his guilt, unless it was shown to he from another cause than from a sense of guilt, or was otherwise explained. 20 Qa., 156, 166; 26 Id., 276, 281; 63 Id., 170.
    
    Judgment affirmed.
    (Head-note by the court.)
    April 27, 1886.
    
      
      
        See 54 Cal., 151; S. C.; 35 Am. R., 69.
    
   Hall, Justice.

[Jackson Sewell was indicted for simple larceny in stealing a bale of cotton. The evidence showed that a bale of cotton was stolen from a gin-house where it was kept; that tracks of a wagon were followed from that point for some distance into another county, where the pursuers saw the wagon and mule in a lot. They learned at starting that the defendant had obtained a mule on the previous day. They went on to get a warrant and waited for the defendant to come by on his return. One of them proposed to arrest him. He j umped out of the wagon and ran away. The cotton was recovered from the place where it had been carried.

The jury found the defendant guilty. He moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and because the court charged as stated in the head-note. The motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.]  