
    STATE v. JAMES L. WILLIAMS.
    (Filed 12 October, 1966.)
    Criminal Law § 154—
    In tbe absence of assignments of error in tbe record or brief, tbe judgment below will be sustained in tbe absence of error appearing on tbe face of tbe record proper.
    Appeal by defendant from Moms, E.J., at April 1966 Special Criminal Session, Nash Superior Court.
    This is a criminal action in which the defendant James L. Williams was charged in a bill of indictment with armed robbery.
    On 8 April, 1965, two men entered Murray’s Esso Station in Sharpsburg just after midnight. The attendant, William Hatch, was in the station alone at the time. One of the men got behind Hatch and pushed what Hatch assumed to be a gun in his back and proceeded to go through the station and the cash register, taking all of the money out of the cash register and also taking Hatch’s wallet. After the men left Hatch saw a 1959 Oldsmobile drive away from the trailer park across the street from the station. He could not tell how many men were in the car at that time. He immediately notified the Eocky Mount police by telephone. A few hours later the police apprehended defendant and three other men in a black 1959> Oldsmobile near the city limits of Rocky Mount. In the automobile the officers found a loaded .38 caliber pistol, several cartons of cigarettes and some money. The defendant was shortly afterwards identified by Hatch as the man who held the gun on him at the time of the robbery. During the Sheriff’s subsequent investigation, the defendant admitted his participation in the robbery and went with the Sheriff to show him where various items taken from the station had been thrown from the car.
    Counsel for this indigent defendant was appointed, and when the case was called the defendant pleaded not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and from a sentence of imprisonment the defendant appealed.
    
      T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General for the State.
    
    
      B. G. Shannonhouse for defendant appellant.
    
   Per Curiam.

No assignments of error appear in the record or briefs filed in this Court as required by Rule 19(3), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. “Therefore, unless error appears on the face of the record proper, or the issues are insufficient to support the judgment entered, the judgment will be sustained.” Trust Co. v. Henry, 267 N.C. 253, 148 S.E. 2d 7. See Bank v. Bryant, 257 N.C. 42, 125 S.E. 2d 291; Milling Co. v. Laws, 242 N.C. 505, 87 S.E. 2d 925; Smith v. Smith, 242 N.C. 646, 89 S.E. 2d 255; Hobbs v. Hobbs, 218 N.C. 468, 11 S.E. 2d 311.

We have examined the record proper, and find

No error.  