
    W. Williams v. The State.
    1. An indictment for theft from a house, after laying venue in the county, described the house as “ the storehouse of James A. H. Hossack & Co.” Held, that the description was sufficient.
    2. An indictment for theft from a house charged the caption and asportation of sundry articles of stated values, “ the corporeal, personal property of said James A. H. Hossack & Co.;” but did not otherwise allege the ownership to be in H. & Co. Held, that the averment of ownership is sufficient.
    Appeal from Marion. Tried below before the Hon. O. T. Garland.
    The material facts are sufficiently indicated in the opinion and the head notes.
    brief for the
    
      E. B. Turner, Attorney General, for the State.
   Walker, J.

In this case the appellant has filed no brief, nor is the record indexed.

On the motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment, we find urged the objections which the appellant probably relies upon.

It is claimed the court erred in charging the jury. We find no • error in the charge.

On motion in arrest it was urged that the description of the house, alleged to have been broken and entered, and from which the goods are said to have been stolen, is not sufficient; and that it is not sufficient to allege that the goods were taken from the possession of James A. H. Hossack, unless it be averred that the goods were the property of said Hossack, or that he was entitled to the possession. We think the indictment is good. The jury have passed upon the facts. There was evidence though not very conclusive, to support the verdict.

The judgment is reversed and cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.  