Broyles

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction rendered against him and two others for the commission of each of the crimes of burglary, robbery and grand theft. He also appeals from the order by which his motion for a new trial was denied.

The first reason assigned by appellant for reversal of the judgment is that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict rendered by the jury.

The record herein discloses the fact that the several •crimes of which the defendants were convicted were accomplished by the breaking into a warehouse, “holding up” the watchman thereof, the felonious taking from his custody of 128 cases of cigarettes, together with the likewise felonious taking of an automobile truck in which the stolen cases of cigarettes were transported from the warehouse to a point where the defendants were arrested.

As to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict against appellant, it appears beyond question that the corpus delicti of each of the several crimes of which defendant was charged was established. Although the defendants went to trial on a plea of “not guilty”, one of them frankly admitted his part in the commission of each of such several…