
    Wedding v. Commonwealth.
    (Decided February 4, 1927.)
    Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court.
    •Criminal Law — Ruling on Former Appeal that Case was for Jury is Law of Case where Evidence at Second Trial was Substantially the Same. — Where evidence at second trial was substantially .same as at first, ruling on former appeal that evidence was .sufficient to take case to jury is law of case.
    W. W. KIRTLEY for appellant.
    FRANK E. DAUGHERTY, Attorney General, and CHAS. F.
    CREAL, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
   Opinion of the Court by

Drury, Commissioner

Affirming.

Ed Wedding has appealed from a judgment imposing upon him three years ’ confinement in the'penitentiary for .stealing chickens. 'He has staked his hope for reversal upon the failure of the court to direct the jury to acquit him. In a former appeal from a five year sentence for this same offense, this was one of his grounds for a reversal, and in 212 Ky. 571, 279 S. W. 981, we said:

“The evidence of appellant’s guilt was sufficient .to take the case to the jury.”

The evidence on this trial is substantially the same, and what was said in our former opinion is the law of the case.

The judgment is affirmed.  