Huie v. State

RICE, Judge.

That the burglary was committed, and that a quantity of goods were taken from the building in question at the time and in connection therewith, were sufficiently shown.

The testimony for the state tended to show that shortly, almost immediately, after the said burglary, appellant was seen in possession of a part of the goods taken at the time. This imposed on appellant the onus of explaining his possession. Halford v. State, 24 Ala. App. 540, 137 So. 679.

The .testimony he introduced tending to make this explanation, in connection with the presumption arising from his said…