MacHen

Upon trial before the court without a jury the defendant was convicted of the crime of attempted burglary. He appeals from the judgment, and “from an order denying a new trial”. The record does not show that there was any motion for a new trial, or any order denying such motion.

As grounds for his appeal from the judgment appellant contends: First, that the evidence was insufficient “to justify the verdict”; and second, that the court erred in pronouncing judgment on the defendant for attempted burglary in the first degree after the court had found the defendant guilty of attempted burglary of the second degree.

Although the evidence tending to prove the attempted burglary by the defendant is in large part circumstantial, nevertheless the facts established by such evidence were legally sufficient to justify the decision of the court. The charge upon which the defendant was convicted was that he attempted to break into an apartment occupied by one Charles Hast in an apartment house. The evidence showed that some person without permission of the owner had made a small hole through a window screen of the Hast apartment and had pried open the hook which held the screen. There is…