Lee v. State ( 1932 )

Broyles, C. J.

The evidence connecting the defendant with the offense charged (larceny of an automobile), while circumstantial, was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that it excluded every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, based upon the usual general grounds only. Judgment affirmed.

Luhe and Hooper, JJ., concur.