Diamond

The defendant was charged with burglary in the first degree and he appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial. The evidence is amply sufficient to support the verdict. To show the strong and conclusive character of the showing made by the people we may quote the following testimony of L. C. Webb, who was employed to watch the residence of J. H. Heuberger, the prosecuting witness, on the evening in question while all the family were absent from home:

He further testified that from the street lights and from a match that was struck he recognized one of the men as Diamond, the defendant, and that he was the one who unhooked the screen and entered the building first. This testimony was not disputed nor discredited in any way and, manifestly, the unlawful entry of the building by the defendant having been thus shown, it was a rational and almost necessary inference that he there and then had the intent to commit larceny, thereby completing the offense of burglary. We may add that the presence of the watchman is accounted for by the circumstances that it was the custom of Mr. Heuberger and his family to be away attending a dance every Friday evening—that…