
    WOLTER v. STATE.
    (No. 10246.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Oct. 13, 1926.
    Rehearing Denied Nov. 24, 1926.)
    I. Criminal law <&wkey;> 8O8I/2 — Chárge on aggravated assault in language of statute held correct.
    Charge of' court, in prosecution for assault with intent to murder on submission of issue of aggravated assault, since in exact language of statute, was correct presentation of law involved.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;8!5(I3) — Charge to consider a!! facts and circumstances, in assault to murder case, in determining adequate causev adequately presented law involved.
    Since, in prosecution for assault with intent to murder, the jury was told to consider all facts and circumstances in determining whether or not adequate cause existed, adequate law of case was presented, despite complaint that, after giving statutory definition of manslaughter, court failed to tell jury to consider previous difficulties between parties.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from District Court, Erath County; J. B. Keith, Judge.
    W. P. Wolter was convicted of aggravated assault, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    *W. T. Williams and Harris Bell, both of Austin, and Oxford & Johnson, of Stephen-ville, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., of Austin, and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., of Groesbeek, for the State.
   BERRY, J.

The offense charged was assault to murder; conviction of an aggravated assauit, and the punishment assessed is a fine of $1,000 and six months in the county jail.

By bills 1 and 2, appellant complains at the charge of the court in submitting the issue of an aggravated assault. The charge óf the court seems to be in the exact language of the statute and’ is a correct presentation of the law of- the case.

Bill Ño. 3 complains because the court defined manslaughter in its statutory form without authorizing the jury, to take into com sideration any previous difficulties between appellant and the injured party. By a reference to paragraph 15 of the court’s charge, it will be found that, in addition to the other instructions given, the jury was told to take into consideration “all of the facts and circumstances in- evidence in the case in' determining whether or not adequate, cause existed.”. Under- the .authorities in this state, this'- was .an -apt-presentation, of the law of the case. ■ ■ ’ ■ •

Complaint is also made.at the court’s fail-’uré to instruct th'e jury that an insult to a female relative' is adequate causé. - We have examined the record very carefully, and fail to find the slightest suggestion- in this record ■raising this issue. ' . ■

• By another bill-, complaint is made at the court’s action in shifting the burden of proof and requiring the jury to believe appellant was not guilty of assault with intent to murder before they could find- him guilty of an aggravated assault.. In view of the fact that the verdict of the jury was only for aggravated assault, this question passes out of . the ease.

Other questions presented by appellant we have car'efully considered, but think they are without merit.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

PER' CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Cburt of Criminal Appeals, and approved by the Court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

. LATTIMORE, J.

It is the plain duty of this court in construing the charge given by the court below to bear in mind all parts of same. In passing upon an alleged error in paragraph sixteen of the charge of the court, same can not avail appellant inasmuch »as the error, if there be such, was entirely cured in paragraph seventeen of the charge.

We have again reviewed the record and conclude that our original opinion sufficiently discussed all the material points raised.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled. 
      <S^bEor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     