Criminal Law—Larceny—Name of Owner of Property—Immaterial Variance.—Where the information charged the defendant with the theft of a horse described as the “property of George P. Sisler and Sam Sisler,” evidence showing that Samuel was the full given name of the person called Sam Sisler in the information, though he was commonly known by the latter designation in the community where he lived, does not disclose a material variance between the allegation and the proof.

Id.—Instructions — Testimony of Accomplice—Reasonable Doubt. Where testimony inculpatory of the defendant was given by one who confessedly was an accomplice in the offense charged, and the court instructed the jury that a conviction cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless lie is corroborated by other evidence which, in itself, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, a subsequent instruction that, if the jury were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged in the iuformation it would be their duty to return a verdict to that effect, does not authorize the jury to infer that they could be satisfied of defendant’s guilt by the testimony of the accomplice alone.

Id.—Charge to be Taken as a Whole.—The charge of the court is to be taken as a whole, and it is not necessary that each paragraph should contain all the conditions and limitations expressed in the others.

Id.—Corroboration of Accomplice.—The evidence reviewed and shown to he sufficiently corroborative of the testimony of an accomplice to the guilt of the defendant, to warrant a verdict of conviction.

Id.—Flight of Defendant—Cause a Question for Jury.—The question whether the flight of the defendant was to avoid arrest for some breach of the peace, or on account of the offense charged, is for the jury; and they are not bound to attribute the consciousness of guilt indicated by flight to one disposing cause rather than the other.