Goodrich

Defendants were convicted of the crime of grand larceny, and they appeal from the order denying their motion for a new trial. [1] The principal contention of appellants is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. We are satisfied, however, that the claim is without substantial merit. After reading the record, we are con- ■ vinced that not only does the evidence support the finding of the jury, but there is no reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants.

It appears without conflict that on September 28, 1918, about 4 P. M., one Song Won Soob, a Korean, was in the act of boarding a railroad train at Stockton, and while getting on the train a purse containing the sum of $61.50 was abstracted and stolen from his pocket. It is a reasonable inference that the theft was committed by the defendants and one Ervine Williams acting in concert and collusion. As to which one actually picked the Korean’s pocket there is some uncertainty, but that the three were participants in the crime stands out clear enough. The prosecuting witness understood English quite imperfectly, and, testifying without an interpreter, his statements are not altogether consistent, some of them…