While the evidence of the defendant’s guilt of larceny was weak, still the testimony was sufficient to authorize the jury to infer that the accused entertained the animus furandi when he borrowed the prosecutor’s watch. Rice v. State, 6 Ca. App. 160 (64 S. E. 575); Bryant v. State, 8 Ga. App. 389 (69 S. E. 121); Martin v. State, 123 Ga. 478 (51 S. E. 334). Judgment affirmed.
Theodore Titus, for plaintiff in error. Boscoe Luke, solicitor, contra.