Hobbs v. State

May 15, 1928
18846
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Bloodworth
Bloodworth, J.

Hnder the rulings in the headnotes, the court did not err in overruling ‍​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‍the motion for a new trial. It is not denied that the storehouse named in the indictment was broken into and the articles named taken therefrom. ‍​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‍One of the owners of‘the store identified at least one of the articles found in the possession of the plaintiff in error as having been taken from ‍​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‍the store. If a single one of the articles taken from the store at the time of the burglary is soon thereafter found in the possession of ‍​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‍the ae*206cused, this is sufficient, in the absence of an explanation which is satisfactory to the jury, to authorize a conviction. See, in this connection, Dixon v. State, ‍​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​‍26 Ga. App. 13, 16 (105 S. E. 39).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.