Wagner

The appellant was convicted on an information charging burglary by entering “the house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store and building” of Michael Logue, in San Francisco. The only question is regarding the sufficiency of the evidence to show burglarious intent.

Logue, the complaining witness, operated a saloon. Back of the saloon ran a passageway, on which opened the living apartments he occupied with his wife. From the passageway also opened a washroom, from which there was a door to an alleyway. Evidently there was another door leading either from the passageway or the washroom to an inclosed yard. Shortly before 10 o’clock on the night in question the appellant, a stranger, entered the saloon and was served with liquor. About 10 o’clock the saloon was closed by Logue. He went to his living apartments across the hall, and, after closing the door from the passageway to the living apartments, he retired with his wife. The door was fitted with a Vale spring lock, which, the evidence showed, automatically locked the door when it was tightly closed. Logue testified that he had slammed the door. Shortly before midnight Logue was awakened by his wife, who said…