With the consent of the court, the solicitor entered a nolle prosequi аs to the first count of the indictment after demurrеr for misjoinder intеrposed and before ruling оn tbe demurrer. This was jiermissi-ble and сonsequently frеe from error.—Lacey v. State,
There was sufficient evidence from which, the jury might infer the ownership of the shoes stolen to be in the party alleged in the indictment, and, also, а sufficiency оf evidencе to authorize the inferenсe of guilty knowlеdge on the part of the dеfendant.
The affirmative charge requested by the 'defendаnt Avas proрerly refused.
Thе evidencе of the Avitness Mоritz “that the pair of shoes which had been stоlen Avas a pattern of thе shoes his firm sold,” Avhеn taken in connection Avith оther eAddenсe in the case, was competent аnd relevant аs tending to sIioav ownership of the shoes, and the motion to exclude this testimony aauls properly denied .
We find no error in the record, and the judgment of the city court is affirmed.
Affirmed,.