¶1 Tbe principal question presented by tbis appeal is tbe correctness of tbe ruling of tbe court below in denying defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit. When tbis same case was bere on tbe defendant’s appeal at Spring Term, 1937 (211 N. C., 326), a new trial was awarded for error in tbe admission of evidence. In tbat case it was said: “While tbe evidence was entirely circumstantial, and included testimony as to tbe action of bloodhounds, admitted for tbe purpose of corroboration, we are unable to say that tbis did not constitute more than a scintilla of evidence, and so sufficient to take tbe case to tbe jury. S. v. Thompson, 192 N. C., 704.”
¶2 Substantially tbe same testimony was presented by tbe State in tbis last trial, and again tbe jury has found tbe defendant guilty. Tbe motion for judgment of nonsuit was properly denied.
¶3 Tbe other exceptions noted at tbe trial and assigned as error cannot be sustained. We find no sufficient reason to disturb tbe result of tbe trial.
¶4 No error.