
    Hall’s Case.
    June Term, 1846.
    1. Criminal Law-Burglary — Possession oí Stolen Goods. — Prisoner is charged witli breaking open a bouse in the day time and stealing therefrom coins of a particular denomination. After evidence tending to prove the charge, proof that the prisoner had in his possession a coin of another denomination, which was in the house when it was broken, is admissible evidence to bring home the breaking of the house to the prisoner.
    2. Same -Breaking into House and Stealing Goods — Indictment for Larceny. — An indictment is for breaking into a honse in the day time and stealing money therefrom. The grand jury endorse it: “An indictment for larceny. A true- bill.” The prisoner is tried upon it, and there is a general verdict of guilty. Heli). No error.
    The prisoner was indicted in the Superior Court of Campbell county. The indictment charged a breaking into the storehouse of John Baskerville in the day time, and stealing therefrom fifty dollars in small silver coin of five cents each. The grand jury endorsed, “An indictment against Allen J. Hall for larceny. A true bill.”
    To this indictment, the prisoner pleaded not guilty; and on the trial, after the Attorney for the Commonwealth had introduced testimony tending to prove that the prisoner had broke into the storehouse of Baskerville, ^offered to prove that a certain piece of silver coin of the denomination of a pistareen was in the said house at the time it was broken, and that it was shortly afterwards seen in the possession of the prisoner. To the introduction of this testimony, the prisoner by his counsel objected, but the Court overruled the objection and admitted the testimony, and the prisoner excepted.
    The jury found the prisoner guilty, and fixed the term of his imprisonment in the penitentiary at three years; whereupon, he moved the Court in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the grand jury only found an indictment against him for larceny; whilst the indictment charges him with housebreaking and larceny. But the Court overruled the motion ; and gave judgment against him. The prisoner thereupon applied to the General Court for a writ of error.
    Lyons, for the prisoner.
    
      
      Criminal Law — Burglary — Possession of Stolen Goods. — The general rule of the common law with regard to the evidence in cases of larceny, that possession of the goods recently stolen is prima facie evidence of guilt, and throws upon the accused the burden of accounting for the possession of such goods, has never been held to apply to the same effect in cases of burglary, and the decided weight of authority is that it does not. Still, where the goods have been obtained by means of burglary or housebreaking, the fact of such possession is a most material circumstance to be considered by the jury in connection with other inculpatory circumstances. There must be some evidence of guilty conduct, besides the mere possession of the stolen property, before the presumption of burglary or housebreaking is superadded to that of larceny. Henderson v. Com., 98 Va. 800, 34 S. E. Rep. 881, citing Gravely’s Case, 86 Va. 396, 10 S. E. Rep. 431; Hall's Case, 3 Gratt. 593. See monographic note on “indictments, Informations and Presentments” appended to Boyle v. Com., 14 Gratt. 674 ; monographic note on “Larceny” appended to Johnson v. Com., 24 Gratt. 555.
    
   By the Court.

Writ of error denied.  