¶1 The conversation with the negro, or rather the fact that, the negro directed the witness to a particular place, to search for the cotton, is a circumstance of which the witness might speak, especially as it was not objected to. I wish to express no opi- *519 nioH as to what would be the case if the evidence had been obiected to. I rather think that the insulated „ . A , . it fact is proper, if tor no other purpose, to explain the motive of the witness. I cannot see how it could effect the Defendant, otherwise than to support the credit of the witness, by showing that he had a motive for his conduct. In that view it went to show, not that the cotton was in the house, but that the witness had been told it was there. As to the other parts of the case, there is no doubt, but the opinion of the Court was correct. All who are concerned in a petty larceny, are principals. Whoever procures a felony to be done, although it be by the instigation of a third person, is an accessary before the fact; and that which in felony makes a person an accessary before the fact, in petty larceny and misdemeanors makes him a principal.
¶2 Per Curiam. — Judgment affirmed,