The evidence not being sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt either that a larceny had been committed, or that, if committed, the accused was the perpetrator, it was error to overrule a motion for a new trial based upon the ground that the judgment of conviction was contrary to the evidence.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent, and Candler, J., not presiding.