
    (79 South. 768)
    CRAUT v. STATE.
    (6 Div. 418.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 29, 1918.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 8, 1918.)
    1. Criminal Law @=807(1) — Argumentative Instruotions.
    Argumentative instructions are properly refused.
    2. Criminal Law '@=>829(1) — Request Covered by Charge.
    Requested instructions, clearly covered by the charge given, are properly refused.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Port, Judge.
    Monroe Craut was convicted of assault with intent to ravish, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    William Vaughan, Smith & McCary, and Thomas Roe, all of Birmingham, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.
   BROWN, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of assault with intent to ravish. There was evidence which, if believed, tends to sustain the verdict of the jury. The only questions presented arise from the refusal of certain special charges requested by the defendant.

Charge 1, the affirmative charge, was properly refused. The question of the defendant’s guilt, under the evidence, was for the jury.

Charges 2, 7, and 8 were all argumentative, and were properly refused for that reason. Moreover, the propositions which these charges undertake to state were clearly covered by the oral charge of the court and the charges given at the request of the defendant.

We find' no reversible error in the record.

Affirmed.  