
    17388.
    Ruis v. The State.
    Criminal Law, 16 C. J. p. 1180, n. 74.
    Decided July 14, 1926.
    Larceny; from city court of Alma—Judge Tuten. March 13, 1926.
    
      H. L. Gmsey, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Q. A. Williams, solicitor, contra.
   Beoyles, C. J.

The evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of the defendant’s guilt. The refusal to grant a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Blood/coorih, JJ., eoneur.  