
    Edward Reynolds, plaintiff in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
    Where the proof in favor of a defendant is stronger and more direct than the evidence against him, there is room for a reasonable doubt, at least, as to his guilt, and he ought not to be convicted.
    Indictment, from Worth Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers, at October Term, 1857.
    Edward Reynolds was indicted for changing the marks and brand of a hog belonging to Jackson J. Williams.
    The defendant pleaded not guilty. ■
    The testimony for the State was to this effect: That some time in February, 1857, Williams, with another, went to defendant’s house and found the hog in a pen there; Williams claimed the hog; defendant said the hog was his own; that he had bought six hogs of Gale Hampton, marked with a split in’one'ear and an underslit in the other, and this was one of them, but if Williams would swear to it he would give if up. The defendant’s mark was a split and an underslit in each ear; this hog’s ears looked as if they had been recently cut, that is, that portion which changed it from Williams’ mark to defendant’s; the rest of the mark was old. That a short time before, defendant asked witness (Dykes) if he knew of any one who had hogs missing in the neighborhood, marked with a split in one year andan underslit in the other.
    For the defence: The testimony was, that the hog was in defendant’s mark before it was put in the pen, and the marks were old.
    Defendant’s father, Elisha Reynolds, testified that the hog in the pen was defendant’s; he had known it from the time it was pigged, and knows it was defendant’s.
    
      The officer who arrested defendant, saw the hog in the pen ; did not see any sign of its being recently marked; he did not examine it closely, but casually looked at in the pen with other hogs.
    The jury found the defendant guilty.
    Whereupon, he moved for a new trial on the grounds, that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and the charge of the Court.
    The Court refused the motion for new trial, and defendant excepted.
    H. Morgan, for plaintiff in error.
    Sol. Gen. T. W. Montrort, for the State.
   Lumpkin J.

By ¿he Court. delivering the opinion.

We think the evidence on the part of the State too slight and uncertain to convict the defendant, and that he is entitled to a new trial. He may be a hog-thief, but the proof should be clear, to convict a citizen of the offence charged. Upon the testimony, there is certainly room to doubt the guilt of the accused. The proof for ' him is stronger and more direct than the proof against him.

Judgment reversed.  