The accused was convicted of burglary, and his motion for - a new trial contained the usual general grounds only. Two of his accomplices testified against him, and their testimony was corroborated by other evidence which, independently of the testimony of the accomplices, directly connected him with the crime charged. The evidence amply authorized the verdict, and the refusal to grant a new trial was not error. Judgment affirmed.
Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.