Sutton v. State ( 1931 )

Luke, J.

The evidence connecting the accused with the stealing of the automobile was wholly circumstantial and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused; and therefore the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J.., and Bloodworth, J., concur. Hammond Johnson, Karle Norman, for plaintiff in error, Robert McMillan, solicitor-general, K. D. Kenyon, contra,