The defendant was convicted of an attempt to commit burglary. The evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, based upon the usual general grounds only. The cases cited in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error are differentiated by their particular facts from this case.
Judgment affirmed.
Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.