
    Jimbo JENKINS v. STATE.
    (No. 10662.)
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 9, 1927.
    Rehearing Denied March 30, 1927.
    Appeal from District Court, Rusk County;
    R. T. Brown, Judge.
    J. W. McDavid, of Henderson, for appellant.
    Sam D. Stinson, State’s Atty., and Robt. M. Lyles, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   LATTIMORE, X

Conviction in district court of Rusk county of assault to murder;, punishment, two years in the penitentiary. The state’s testimony makes out a clear case of assault to murder; that of appellant, a case of self-defense. There are four bills of exception, three of which evidence complaint of the refusal of three special charges. The charges complained of in bills of exceptions Nos. 2 and 3 attempt to group facts and apply the law to them in a manner which makes them obnoxious to the rule against charges on the weight of the testimony. We conceive the charge referred to in bill of exceptions No. 1 to be entirely covered by the main charge. Bill of exceptions No. 4 was taken to the overruling of motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment, and we perceive nothing in .same to call for any discussion by this court. Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

The correctness of our former opinion is assailed only upon the proposition that the testimony is insufficient. The prosecuting witness testified -that, following some misunderstanding between himself and appellant about some pigs, appellant came to where he was at work, carrying a shotgun, and said he had come to settle the hog business. After some words, witness said he started away, and appellant followed Mm and shot him. Appellant testified that he went to where prosecuting witness was, and, following some words, prosecuting witness attacked him with an ax, and that in self-defense he shot Conflicts in the testimony are for settlement by the jury. If they believed the testimony of prosecuting witness, appellant was guilty of assault with intent to murder. If they believed appellant, he was guilty of nothing. They accepted the state’s version of the matter. The motion for rehearing is overruled.  