Conceding that the recent possession .of the stolen automobile (if, indeed, the evidence establishes such possession, which may be doubted) was a circumstance tending to show the larceny thereof by the defendant (S. v. Best, 202 N. C., 9, 161 S. E., 535), still it is the holding with us that the inference or presumption arising from the recent possession of stolen property, without more, does not extend to the statutory charge (C. S., 4250) of receiving said property knowing it to have been feloniously stolen or taken. S. v. Adams, 133 N. C., 667, 45 S. E., 553.

There was not sufficient evidence to justify a conviction on the second count in the bill.

Eeversed.