(After stating the facts as above.) The only •question arising on the record for us to consider is; — Was there any evidence of the larceny, or of the felonious receiving, which warranted the conviction of the defendant ?
If there was no evidence, or if the evidence was so slight as not reasonably to warrаnt the inference of the defendant’s guilt, or furnish more than materials for á mere suspicion, it was error to leave the issue to be passed on by the jury, .and they should have been directed to acquit.
Cobb
v.
*472
Fogleman,
1 Ire. 440;
State
v.
Williams,
The question now presented is this : Do the facts proved,, if believed by the jury, reasonably warrant the inference deduced from them of the defendant’s guilt? We are of' the opinion that the evidence was properly left to the jury, and that it is not so dеfective as to authorize the Court on. that account to disturb the verdict. It was proved that lint cotton was stolen from some bales on the platform оf the-company’s ware-house on the night of' December 22d; and four bags cоntaining cotton like that taken from the bales-were found near the plaсe, some on the track, and some hidden under a freight car. The defendant was there at the-time, apd was seen behind a pile of wood. About a month afterwards two bags in all respects similar to the other four-,, and with the same marks upon them, filled with the same-Bort of cotton, were found concealed in a crib in possession-■of the defendant, under some seed cotton, about a mile from the ware-house ; and so far as appears to us no explаnation is given by the defendant.
It was not in our opinion an unreasonable cоnclusion of the jury that the cotton discovered in the defendant’s crib-■\yas pаrt of that stolen from the bales; and if so, that it was stolen by the defendant. If the identity оf the cotton bs conceded, the fact of its being found in his crib covered up and concealed under other cotton, with the other concurring evidеnce, tends strongly to establish the truth of the-charge.- The possession of stolen property recently after the-
*473
theft, and under circumstances excluding the intervening-agency of others, affords presumptive evidence that the рerson in possession is himself the thief, and the evidence is stronger or weakеr, as the possession is nearer to or more-distant from the time of the cоmmission of the offence.
State
v. Jones, 3 Dev. & Bat. 122;
State
v. Johnson, 1 Winst. 151. And such evidence must be left to the jury to weigh and consider in determining the question of the defendant’s guilt.
State
v.
Lytle 5
Ire. 58;
State
v.
Williams, 2
Jones 194;
State
v.
Shaw,
In the case of the
State
v.
Kent,
The evidence in the case was properly left to the jury, and of its sufficiency to prove to their satisfaсtion the guilt of the defendant, they alone must determine. The Judge who tried the cаuse had power to set aside the verdict if in his-opinion injustice was done tо the defendant. He has not-thought proper to do so, and we cannot disturb the verdict.-
There is no error. This will be certified to -the Court below that judgment may be rendered on the verdict.
No error.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.