McCann

Defendant was convicted, after trial before the court without a jury, of burglary. This appeal is from the judgment of conviction and order denying his motion for a new trial.

Viewing the evidence most favorable to the respondent, the facts are:

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on these propositions:

The first proposition is untenable. The law is established in California that possession of stolen property coupled with false statements as to the manner in which the property came into defendant’s possession is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of burglary. (People v. Neber, 125 Cal. 560, 561 [ 58 Pac. 133 ] ; People v. Russell, 120 Cal. App. 622, 625 [ 8 Pac. (2d) 209 ].)

Applying the foregoing rule of law to the facts in the instant case, there is substantial evidence to sustain defendant’s conviction of burglary, since he possessed the watch at the time of his arrest and he gave inconsistent and conflicting accounts of the manner in which it came into his possession.

The second proposition is likewise untenable. Defendant at the time his case was called for trial moved for a continuance of four or five days, which was denied. However, after the case…