
    Jones v. The Commonwealth.
    October Term, 1866,
    Richmond.
    i. Criminal Law — Larceny—Indictment—Owner.—in a trial for larceny to convict the prisoner, there must be satisfactory proof that the property stolen was the property of the person stated in the indictment.
    This was an indictment in the Circuit court of the county of Powhatan against Randolph Jones, a freedman, for stealing six hogs, the propert3T of Blair Burwell. On the trial the prisoner was found guilty, and the term of his imprisonment in the penitentiary was fixed at three years. He thereupon moved the court for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; but the court overruled the motion, and rendered a judgment upon the verdict. The prisoner excepted to the opinion of the court overruling the motion, and the court having certified the facts proved, »he applied to this court for a writ of error to the judgment; which was awarded.
    There was evidence from which the jury might reasonably infer that parts of a hog or hogs found in the prisoner’s house, had been stolen, and there was proof that Bur-well had lost six hogs; but there was no proof that the meat found was a part of Burwell’s hogs.
    John Howard, for the prisoner.
    The Attorney General, for the commonwealth.
    
      
      The principal case was cited in Prather v. Com., 85 Va. 127, 7 S. E. Rep. 178. See generally, mono-graphic note on “Larceny” appended to Johnson v. Com., 24 Gratt. 555; monographic note on “Indictments.”
    
   P.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The court is of opinion that while the facts certified may be sufficient to raise a strong suspicion that a part of the meat found in the possession of the prisoner or his wife was stolen properly, they do not identifj' it as part of the hogs supposed to have been stolen from Blair Burwell; but on the contrary tend to show that it was not a part of the said hogs; and that the Circuit court therefore erred in overruling the prisoner’s motion for a new trial: Therefore it is considered that the said judgment be reversed and annulled. And this court proceeding to give such judgment as the said Circuit court ought to have given, it is further considered that the verdict of the jury be set aside. And the cause is remanded to the said Circuit court for a new trial to be had therein: which is ordered to be certified to the said Circuit court of Powhatan county.

Judgment reversed.  