Case ID: cal-unrep_3/html/0488-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PEOPLE v. NAGLE.
    No. 20,892;
    April 1, 1892.
    29 Pac. 640.
    Larceny—Appeal.—On Trial for Larceny, where there was some evidence tending to show defendant’s guilt, a verdict of guilty will not be disturbed on the ground of the insufficiency thereof.
    APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; J. C. Hebbard, Judge.
    Maggie Nagle was convicted of petit larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.
    Alex Campbell, Jr., for appellant; Attorney General Hart for the People.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted of petit larceny under an information charging grand larceny, and now insists the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict. There was some evidence before the jury tending to show the guilt of the defendant, and, under those circumstances, we will not disturb the verdict.

Let the judgment and order be affirmed.