The motion for a new trial contains only the *613usual general grounds, and the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude, every reasonable hypothesis save that of the defendant’s guilt. It was therefore not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

dissenting. Though the State’s evidence strongly tended to establish the fact that the tracks seen near the place of the crime corresponded in minute particulars with the trades of the.accused, who was charged with the offense of arson, the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient, in my opinion, to show, to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis, that' the defendant committed the crime.