¶1*436Mr. Leonard B. Sussholz, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court), with whom Mr. Jacob N. Halper, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
¶2Mr. Richard M. Roberts, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, and Robert M. Scott and Joseph M. Howard, Assistant United States Attorneys, all of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
¶3Before CLARK, PROCTOR and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.
¶5Appellant attacks his conviction and sentence for housebreaking and la-rceny. He claims the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of acquittal or to instruct the jury that silent presence at the scene of the crimes was insufficient evidence upon which to convict.
¶6Although it is argued that appellant’s presence in an automobile in front of the looted premises during commission of the crimes was the only evidence against him, we gather a different impression from the record. We think the evidence tended to show a chain of circumstances from wthich a reasonable conclusion of guilty participation by appellant, within the purview of 22 D.C.Code (1940) § 105,12can be fairly drawn. Obviously too, this was the conclusion of both judge and jury.
¶7 In response to an oral2request to instruct the jury that mere silent presence was insufficient to convict, the court did add to instructions relating to an accomplice. Reading the charge as a whole, we think it was sufficient.
¶8The judgment of the District Court is
¶9Affirmed.