The Court of Appeals last Monday upheld the first-degree murder con viction of Clayton Edward Breeding for the slaying of an Eastern Shore housewife. Breeding, of Hickman, is serving a life term in prison for the strangu lation murder of Mrs. Ruth Ellen Cannon, a 19-year-old housewife of near Burrsville. Breeding’s attorney had asked for reversal of the conviction on grounds it was based on insufficient circum stantial evidence. The high court agreed the evidence “is almost wholly circumstantial,” but it said that is not a fatal objec tion. Judge William L. Henderson, speaking for a unanimous court, said: “The inference seems almost ines capable that Mrs. Cannon, whether willingly or unwillingly, left her home in the company of Breeding, and in his car. “Sometime during the morning or evening of the following day she met her death through manual stran gulation, after a severe beating and struggle. “The body was found at a point some 600 to 1,000 feet from the point where Breeding’s car had been park ed and left tire marks. “We think the triers of the fact could properly draw the inference, from all the circumstances of the case, that she met her death at his hands, and that the killing was pre meditated and with malice afore thought.” Breeding was convicted by three Caroline County judges last October for the June 30 staying. Mrs. Cannon was strangled with a strip of cloth torn from her blouse. Breeding was the object of a three week manhunt before he was captur ed in Newark, Del. He denied the killing and said he had never seen Mrs. Cannon. state witnesses placed Breeding at the Cannon home when Mrs. Can non was last seen alive and identi fied his car as being in the woods near where the body was found. A fingerprint expert found two points of similarity between Mrs. Cannon’s thumbprint and one found on a win dow of Breeding’s car. The high court, noting Breeding’s testimony that he had been drinking on the night of the murder, said “vol untary drunkenness is generally not a defense.” “Moreover,” the opinion said, “the triers of fact could properly find, as they did, that the accused was not drunk at the time of the murder. They were not obliged to accept his story.” The appellate judges also noted that “actions of an accused after the event may evidence guilty know ledge.”