Criminal Law—Larceny op Heifer by General Owner from Special Ownership of Agister.—It is larceny for the general owner of a heifer to steal it from an agister who had taken it from the owner to pasture, for compensation, and who has a special ownership therein for the enforcement of his agister’s lien; and the property may be alleged in the information to he the property of the agister. .

Id.—Construction of Penal Code.—The words “personal property of another,” as used in section 484 of the Penal Code, correctly interpreted, means property in the possession of another who is entitled, as bailee or otherwise, to retain possession thereof for some benefit or profit to himself, to the exclusion of all others, rather than the absolute ownership defined by section 679 of the Civil Code.

Id.—Larceny from Bailee.—The taking of property by the general owner thereof, from, tha possession of one who rightfully holds it as bailee or otherwise for benefit to himself, with the intent to charge such bailee with the value thereof, or to deprive him of such benefit, constitutes larceny.

Id.—Instructions to be Construed Together.—Instructions given are to be construed together; and in charging the jury it is not necessary, in dealing with each particular phase of the case, ■ to repeat all of the conditions and limitations which are to be gathered from the entire text.

Id.—Charge to Jury—Presumption or Innocence—Circumstantial Evidence.—Where the court had charged the jury that the “law presumes every man innocent until his guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt, and this presumption attaches to every fact essential to conviction, ’ ’ such instruction is to be taken in connection with an instruction that “while every fact essential to prove the guilt of the defendant to a moral certainty must be fully proven, the law permits this to be done by circumstantial evidence, and where the evidence is circumstantial, but proves every fact essential to sustain the hypothesis of guilt, and to exclude the hypothesis of innocence, and is inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that of the guilt of the defendant, the law makes it the duty of the jury to convict the defendant,” and there was no error in such instructions.

Id.—Instruction not Pertinent to Evidence—Harmless Error—• Burden upon Appellant.—The giving of an abstractly correct instruction, which is not pertinent to the evidence, is to be regarded as harmless error, where the record upon appeal fails to show how the alleged error could have prejudiced the substantial rights of the defendant, upon whom, as appellant, the burden rests to show such prejudice by the record.

Id.—Support of Verdict—Province of Jury and Trial Judge.—Held, that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of guilty of larceny as charged in the information, and that the determination as to the weight of conflicting evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were within the province of the jury in the first instance, and in the second, within that of the trial judge in passing upon the motion for a new trial; and where such motion is denied, the verdict will not be disturbed upon appeal.

Id.—--Evidence—Arrest of Agister and Former Owner by Thief— Declarations—Wrongful Intent.—Evidence was admissible to show that after defendant had stolen the heifer from the possession of the agister, he declared that he would hold the agister and the former owner of the pasture both responsible for her loss, and that he caused them both to be arrested for stealing the heifer from the pasture—in order to establish the wrongful intent with which he stole the heifer,,