O'Leary

Appellant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Pie contends on appeal that said conviction should be set áside because the evidence, being circumstantial, fails to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt and that such evidence is not inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

. The trial court was asked to direct the trial jury to return a verdict in favor of defendant at the conclusion of the presentation of the Government’s evidence. The motion was denied. No evidence was offered on behalf of defendant.

We have considered the evidence with a view of determining whether it is insufficient in the particulars urged by appellant and conclude it was not. The trial court correctly ruled that the case should go to the jury and the verdict returned by the jury is based on substantial evidence of facts which exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt and is inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. 1 We have, of course, *334 considered the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, as is required on appeal.

The pertinent facts disclosed by the evidence follow:

During the afternoon of December…