To sustain a conviction for a felony, the testimony corroborating that of the accomplice must be sufficient to connect the defendant with the perpetration of the crime and tend to show his participation therein. King v. State, 77 Ga. App. 539 (49 S. E. 2d 196); Crowe v. State, 83 Ga. App. 325 (63 S. E. 2d 682). Slight evidence that a larceny was committed by the defendant and identifying him with it will corroborate the testimony of an accomplice and warrant a conviction. Evans v. State, 78 Ga. 351. It is not essential that the corroborating evidence shall in and of itself corroborate the testimony of the accomplice in every material particular. Dixon v. State, 116 Ga. 186 (42 S. E. 357). The corroborating circumstances should, however, be such as would lead to the inference that the defendant is guilty independently of the accomplice’s testimony. Welborn v. State, 25 Ga. App. 327 (103 S. E. 193).

2. Applying the foregoing law to* the facts here, evidence that the defendant showed interest in the boat shortly before its disappearance, that it was stolen by two< men, that the defendant and the accomplice traveled together to several towns with the boat trying to sell it, and that the defendant eventually went to the person from whom it was stolen and offered to show him where it was, together with other facts, was sufficient evidence to corroborate testimony of the accomplice to the effect that he and the defendant stole the boat jointly.

The trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

*840 The corroborative evidence is as follows: It had just rained and there were clear tracks of two men’s footprints where the boat was dragged out. Wilkerson and McPherson took the boat around through Ashburn, Fitzgerald and Cordele as described by Wilkerson. Both men tried to sell the boat to' Mathis, although at the time McPherson stated that it was Wilkerson’s boat, that Wilkerson had bought it from a man in Texas and that Wilkerson owed him money. The defendant had been to see Crowe before the boat was stolen and had talked to him about it. Further evidence showed that after the State Patrol, on information received from Mathis, began its investigation of the boat and this became known to the defendant, he went back to Crowe and told him he thought he knew where the boat was; that he had furnished $375 to a man in Atlanta to haul whisky, and the man told him he had swapped the whisky for the boat; that he had become suspicious and hired a detective to trace the boat and thus found out it belonged to Crowe, and he offered to take *841 Crowe to where the boat was, whereupon. Crowe offered him a $100 reward for its return. The defendant contended in his statement that he thought Wilkerson had bought the boat by trading whisky for it, that Wilkerson owed him $300 which he had not repaid owing to his being fired for stealing, which defendant knew at the time, and that later he heard some talk of a boat having been stolen from Crowe and went over to see him about it. He stated that he had been hunting with three other people on the night of the theft and one of them, Hambrick, testified to the fact that the defendant had been hunting that night and until 5:30 the next morning.

The defendant after conviction filed his motion for new trial on the general grounds only, which was denied. The exception is to this judgment.