
    Peter Hines, plaintiff in error, vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
    The evidence for the state not being sufficient to authorize a conviction, the verdict will be set aside and a new trial ordered.
    
      Criminal law. New trial. Before Judge Strozbr. Dougherty Superior Court. April Term, 1873.
    Peter Hines was placed on trial for the offense of larceny from the person, alleged to have been committed on March 26th, 1870. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The evidence for the state presented the following state of facts:
    About the time charged in the indictment one Ben Randall attended an auction at Cooper’s store, in the town of Albany. He had in his pocket-book a fifty dollar bill, a five dollar bill and a ten cent piece in silver. He loaned to George Barber the five dollar bill. Wishing to pay for a pair of pants which he had purchased, he handed the fifty dollar bill to Mr. Cooper, who returned the change, after deducting $2 00, the price of the pants. Randall put the change in his pocketbook, and placed said book in his right hand pants’ pocket. He was standing by the counter. _ Defendant was sitting on a stool directly against Randall when the money was changed, and saw the entire transaction. About five minutes after this, Randall looked for his pocket-book and it was gone. Defendant had just left. As soon as the money was missed, Mr. Cooper had the doors closed, and permitted no one to leave until he had been searched. Mr. Cooper searched the white people and Randall the black. Neither the book nor money could be found. About twenty persons, mostly colored, were present when the pocket-book.was lost. Randall can tell bills from $1 00 up to $5 00, but beyond that he is unable to distinguish one from another. Mr. Cooper testified that it was a fifty dollar bill he changed for him.
    The evidence for the defense is omiited as unnecessary to an understanding of the decision.
    The jury found the defendant guilty. A motion was made for a new trial, because the verdict was contrary to the evidence. The motion was overruled and defendant excepted.-
    Hines & Hobbs, for plaintiff in'error.
    B. B. Bower, solicitor general, for the state.
   Warner, Chief Justice.

The defendant was indicted for the offense of “larceny from the person,” and charged with taking from one Randall $-48 10, with intent to steal the same. On the trial, the jury found the defendant guilty. A. motion was made for a new trial, on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law, contrary to the evidence, and without evidence; which motion was overruled, apd the defendant excepted. In looking through the evidence on the part of the state, it is not sufficient, in our judgment, to authorize a conviction of the defendant, under the law, for the offense alleged in the indictment, and it was error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Let the judgment of the court below be reversed.  