majority"> Stacy, J.

The only exception presented on the record is the one directed to the failure or refusal of the trial court to grant the defendant’s motion for dismissal of the action or 'for judgment as of nonsuit, made under C. S., 4643, after the State had produced its evidence and rested its case. There was no testimony offered by the defendant.

The defendant was found in possession of some of the stolen, goods within a very short time — one or two hours — after the mill had been entered and the goods feloniously taken therefrom. This was some evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense and from which the jury was warranted in concluding that he had participated therein as one of the principals. S. v. Hullen, 133 N. C., 656; S. v. McRae, 120 N. C., 608. True there was other evidence, offered by the State, tending to show that Marvin Barbee and Lonnie Page actually broke into the building and feloniously carried the goods away, while, so far as the witnesses knew, the defendant was not present and *493 in no way aided and abetted Barbee and Page in tbe commission of tbe crime. But it was also in evidence tbat Barbee and Page gave tbe defendant, James Williams, a portion of tbe stolen goods in order to keep bim from telling on tbem as be, tbe defendant, said “be knew where tbey got it.”

Viewing tbe evidence in tbe light most favorable to tbe State, tbe accepted position on a motion of this kind (S. v. Rountree, 181 N. C., 535), we think tbe trial court was justified in submitting tbe case to tbe jury and tbat tbe verdict is fully warranted by tbe testimony. There is no.exception to tbe charge. Tbe demurrer to tbe evidence, or motion for dismissal, was properly overruled.

No error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress