Stern

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of burning insured property and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The first point made by appellant for reversal of the judgment is that the verdict of the jury was not supported by the evidence. Among other facts, many of which at least were not antagonistic to a conclusion that defendant was wholly innocent-of wrongdoing, the following may be mentioned as bearing upon the question of the sufficiency of.the evidence to support the verdict, to wit: Defendant was the proprietor of a millinery store. Referring to the stock of goods in the store, each of two witnesses for the prosecution testified in effect that immediately after the fire, “practically all of it was saturated with gasoline”; and that although several articles of such stock of goods which gave off the odor of gasoline were produced as exhibits on the trial of the action, “not anywheres near all of it” was present in court. In addition thereto, a cardboard box which was inside a carton “containing scraps of material” was found in the storeroom, which box not only gave off the odor of gasoline, but which “contained a small quantity of gasoline…