
    State of Connecticut vs. Marie Itczak.
    First Judicial District, Hartford,
    March. Term, 1930.
    Wheeler, C. J., Maltbie, Haines, Hinman and Banks, Js.
    Argued March 5th
    decided March 6th, 1930.
    
      
      Donald C. McCarthy, for the appellant (the accused).
    
      Donald Gaffney, with whom, on the brief, was Hugh M. Alcorn, State’s Attorney, for the appellee (the State).
   Pee Curiam.

We have made an examination and comparison of the evidence and are convinced that the jury might reasonably have found the accused guilty as charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was conflicting, both upon the charge of the information and upon the accused’s defense of an alibi. Under these circumstances it was the province of the jury to resolve this conflict. We cannot hold that the verdict should have been set aside. State v. Chin Lung, 106 Conn. 701, 704, 139 Atl. 91; State v. Cianflone, 98 Conn. 454, 459, 120 Atl. 347.

There is no error.  