JUDGEMENT
VAN LARE, J.S.C
The appellant could not give any explanation of his possession by purchase of the said 100 cases of beer because of his complete denial of the purchase. His case was that he had bought only six cases of beer, and that it was in respect of them that he had given evidence in the case, the proceedings of which we have received in this appeal and marked exhibit S.C.1. Upon a study and perusal of the exhibit, exhibit S.C.1., we agree with the trial circuit judge that the appellant would wish to have the court confused with proceedings in that case which we find were entirely different from the matter in the present appeal. The appellant bought six cases of beer from those charged together with him on the 26th October, 1960, in that case from a different lot of 100 cases of beer, also stolen by the co-accused from the same brewery. The present charge concerns the theft of another lot of 100 cases of beer stolen on the 20th October, 1960, and this lot, it has been cle…