
    19222.
    Whitehead et al. v. The State.
    Decided November 13, 1928.
   Broyles, 0. J.

In the opinion of the majority of this court the evidence (which was wholly circumstantial) was insufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused, and the refusal to grant a new trial was error. The writer thinks that the evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant’s guilt. See, in this connection, Yonce v. State, 154 Ga. 419 (114 S. E. 325); Flint v. State, 29 Ga. App. 222 (114 S. E. 585); Jones v. State, 36 Ga. App. 264 (136 S. E. 542).

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodioorth, JJ., concur. Broyles, O. J., dissents.

Shackleford, Shackleford & Davis, Wolver M. Smith, for plaintiff in error

cited Ga. App. Rep.: 2/534; 7/607; 14/598; 16/291, 293-4; 25/242, 258; 27/581, 601, 603; 28/347, 363; 29/24.

Pemberton Cooley, solicitor-general, contra,

cited Ga. App. Rep.: 29/173, 222; 35/581; 36/364(2); 154 Ga. 419.  