This is an appeal from the judgment.

Defendant was accused of arson and following a trial by the court without a jury was adjudged guilty.

Briefly, the record reveals that the property burned was the home- of defendant. Appellant’s brief recites that, “Mrs. Burrows was the sole owner of the real property located at 2019 Waltonia Drive. She was separated from her husband, and had signed a property agreement giving her this piece of property. The property was purchased in 1948 for $11,000.00. It was insured for only $8,000.00.” There were two insurance policies on the personal property of $5,000 each. It appears that defendant who was home when the fire started, which was between 2 and 4 a. m., did not call the fire department but drove to the sheriff’s office, some distance *767 away and notified the deputy. Meanwhile, the neighbors had ’phoned the fire department.

It appears from the record-that the fire had started in three different points, one in the living door, one in the doorway leading to the middle bedroom from the hall, and the other on the kitchen floor at the back of the house. As recited in respondent’s brief, “The floor was burned completely through at each of the points of origin. Captain Bittlé saw burned and charred paper debris around the hole in the living room. Sergeant Hatcher observed those papers, and also found charred paper debris in the bottom of all three holes. Both the captain and the sergeant were of the opinion that the fire in the living room had started first. Sergeant Hatcher believed that it had been burning for about two hours, and not less than an hour and a half, before it was extinguished. There was evidence that it was extinguished shortly after the firemen arrived at 4:13 a. m., which would place the time when Sergeant Hatcher believed it had started at some time from shortly after 2:13 a. m. to some time shortly after 2:43 a. m.”

Defendant’s automobile contained numerous personal effects and records.

The foregoing is not a complete summary of the evidence but a substantial outline.

Appellant’s brief recites, “a resume of the prosecution’s ease would show the basis of their case to be on the following facts:

Respondent’s argument, which is amply supported by the record, is as follows:

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed.

White, P. J., and Scott (Robert H.), J. pro tern., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 17, 1953.