Pringle v. State

The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called defendant, was convicted on a charge of receiving stolen property, knowing the same to have been stolen-, and appeals.

The only question presented by the appeal is the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. The record discloses that, on the 15th day of February, 1923, a railroad car was broken into at Oilton and certain Ford parts and accessories stolen therefrom, among which were some Ford wheels equipped with casings and tubes. Shortly after the theft, four of the wheels were found in the possession of the defendant under the bed at…