Hannon

The defendant was convicted of burglary in the first degree; from the judgment rendered against him, and an order denying a new trial, he appeals.

It is urged in his behalf that the evidence is insufficient to show that he, or any one else, broke and entered the premises mentioned in the information, at the time *375 charged, with the intent to commit grand or petit larceny, or any felony, or that he ever entered them at all.

We think the evidence, taken altogther, direct and circumstantial, is sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury.

It is also claimed that the court erroneously instructed the jury that “if the jury believe certain property to to have been stolen, proof of its possession is not, of itself alone, sufficient to justify the conviction of the defendant, but is a circumstance which, if not satisfactorily explained, tends to establish guilt, and when taken in connection with other evidence, may be sufficient to satisfy the minds of the jurors of the guilt of the accused; but you cannot find a person guilty upon proof of possession of stolen property alone, without any other evidence to explain its possession.”

A similar charge was offered in People v. Fagan,…