Argued September 27, 1943. On October 6, 1942, between five and five-fifteen P.M., Paul K. Hart parked his automobile near the intersection of Broad Street and Olney Avenue, Philadelphia, and went, by subway, to his work. It was later discovered in a vacant lot near the intersection of Ashmead and Ashbourne Roads in Cheltenham Township, Montgomery County, stripped of its wheels, including tires and tubes.
Appellant was convicted, by separate verdicts, on two indictments, charging larceny of the automobile and larceny of the wheels, tires and tubes. He was *Page 641 sentenced to two and a half to five years on each. Expressly for the purpose of avoiding the legal effect of a duplication in the crimes charged, the learned trial judge directed that the sentences run concurrently.
It was the theory of the commonwealth that appellant took the automobile to the vacant lot and removed the wheels some time between five-thirty and seven P.M., the evening of October 6th. The evidence was largely circumstantial; there was no eye-witness who saw appellant steal the automobile or remove the wheels. It was shown that about five-thirty appellant borrowed an automobile from a man named Gill. His whereabouts were not directly accounted for between that time and seven o'clock when he stopped at the home of Ludwig, the commonwealth's principal witness, and drove him to his (appellant's) home. Appellant there entered the house while Ludwig remained outside. About nine P.M., appellant reappeared. He and Ludwig entered the Gill car and appellant drove to a point on the highway adjacent to the vacant lot where the Hart car was subsequently discovered. They arrived there about ten P.M. Appellant stopped the car, turned out the lights, left the motor running, got out of the car for about "a minute," and had loaded into the car three of the stolen wheels when his activities were interrupted by a policeman who stopped to investigate. Appellant thereupon directed Ludwig to drive off, which he did. Their flight ended several minutes later when they crashed into a parked car. Ludwig was arrested within a few minutes; on information which he furnished the police, appellant was arrested the next day.
It was shown that appellant was a former garage mechanic and inspection of the clothes which he had worn early in the evening indicated to the trial judge, who so stated in his opinion, that the shoes were muddy and there was testimony that there were several pickers or burrs on the shirt. It was shown that the ground *Page 642 where the wheels were stripped from the Hart car was muddy or "soft" and that similar burrs were found there.
The fourth wheel was subsequently found along the road at the point where appellant had picked up the other three.
Appellant seems to concede that the possession of recently stolen goods is sufficient to support an inference that the possessor is the thief. See Com. v. Dock,
The Montgomery County Court had jurisdiction even if the larceny took place in Philadelphia; the transportation of the stolen goods into that county would give it jurisdiction. SeeSimmons v. Com., 5 Binney 617; 2 Wharton's Criminal Law (12th Ed.), Sec. 1168; and Com. v. Leitz, 46 Montgomery County Law Report 28.
We have carefully considered appellant's remaining *Page 643 points. They were adequately discussed and properly disposed of in the opinion of the court below, and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat what was there said.
Judgments affirmed.