Court Opinion

ID: 5606278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-11 03:44:25.580197+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:36:57.285495
License: Public Domain

Russell, J.
While the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of larceny was weak, still the testimony was sufficient to authorize the jury to infer that the accused entertained the animus furandi when he borrowed the prosecutor’s watch. Rice v. State, 6 Ca. App. 160 (64 S. E. 575); Bryant v. State, 8 Ga. App. 389 (69 S. E. 121); Martin v. State, 123 Ga. 478 (51 S. E. 334). Judgment affirmed.
Theodore Titus, for plaintiff in error.
Boscoe Luke, solicitor, contra.