¶1We think both the charges asked by the defendant should have been given.
¶2The evidence was insufficient to prove that the house had been broken and entered by the defendant; it did not prove that the house had been -broken at all. Nor was there any evidence that the carpet bag had been in fact stolen. In other words, no larceny was proved.
¶3To make the possession of goods evidence against a party charged with stealing them, the larceny must first be proved, and then the possession of the stolen goods may be presumptive evidence of guilt, unless the party found in the possession of goods can show how he came by them.
¶4Neither did the evidence prove that the house, charged to have been broken and entered, was a dwelling house. A dwelling house is the apartment, building, or cluster of buildings, in which a man with his family resides. — 1 Bishop’s Cr. Law, § 295.
¶5The evidence did not show that any family resided in the house charged to have been broken and entered. It clearly was not the dwelling housé of the witness Bobbins, and the evidence failed to prove that Peyton Borge resided in the house.
¶6The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.