Appellant Pratt was indicted, tried and convicted of grand larceny. He now urges a number of points respecting admission and exclusion of evidence and instructions to the jury. He made none of these points in the trial court. We have examined them and the record and find no reason to depart from the Rules 1 and to exercise the discretionary power we have in cases of plain errors affecting substantial rights. There was an eyewitness to the alleged larceny, a person who had known Pratt. Pratt himself took the stand and denied he had had any part in the theft or had known the eyewitness. The case was fairly presented, and much depended upon credibility.

Affirmed.