The corpus delicti of an arson may, of course, be established by circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances are sufficient' to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of a wilful and intentional burning, and are so strong as to rebut the presumption that the fire was of providential or accidental origin; but the circumstances in the present case arq not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption as to the origin of the fire.

Judgment reversed.

dissenting. In my opinion the circumstantial evidence in the case was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti.

Moore v. State, 14 Ga. App. 255 (80 S. E. 507); Beasley v. State, 12 Ga. App. 256; Boatright v. State, 10 Ga. App. 29; Stanley v. State, Id. 153; Garnett v. State, Id. 114; Morris v. State, 12 Ga. App. 810; Hawthorne v. State, Id. 811; Ford v. State, 13 Ga. App. 68; Watson v. State, Id. 181; Prater v. State, 16 Ga. App. 296; Williams v. State, 15 Ga. App. 306 (6, 7).