
    RIDLEY v. STATE
    [No. 250,
    September Term, 1958.]
    
      Decided June 5, 1959.
    
    The cause was argued before Bruñe, C. J., and Henderson, Hammond, Prescott and Horney, JJ.
    
      Milton B. Allen, with whom were Brown, Allen & Watts on the brief, for appellant.
    
      Shirley Brannock Jones, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General, J. Harold Grady, State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, and Frank J. Mar
      
      cellino, Assistant State’s Attorney for Baltimore City, on the brief, for appellee.
   PER Curiam.

The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant, who was convicted of the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle under the Code (1957), Article 27, Section 349, possessed criminal intent, a necessary element of the offense, Anello v. State, 201 Md. 164, when he was physically using an automobile belonging to another. The question of his intention, of course, involved a question of fact. We recently quoted from a celebrated statement of Lord Bowen in an action of deceit to the effect that the state oí a man’s mind is as much a question of fact as the state of his digestion. Tufts v. Poore, 219 Md. 1, 11. We have carefully examined the record; the evidence, and permissible inferences therefrom, fully support the finding of the trial judge that the appellant possessed criminal intent when using the automobile. Anello v. State, supra.

Judgment affirmed.  