
    State, Respondent, vs. Tyler, Appellant.
    
      April 9
    
    May 5, 1942.
    
    
      Nathaniel D. Rothstein and Roy 0. Conen, both of Milwaukee, for the appellant.
    For the respondent there was a brief by the Attorney General, Herbert I. Steffes, district attorney of Milwaukee county, and Andrew W. Bnmhart, assistant district attorney, and oral argument by Mr. Brunhart.
    
   Rosenbérry, C. J.

The sole question raised upon this appeal is whether the evidence sustains the finding of the trial court. It is contended by the defendant, (1) that his conduct negatives any intent on his part to use force to accomplish his purpose; (2) that the circumstances show that he never intended to commit the offense; and (3) that intent is the gist of the offense. We have carefully examined the record in this case and we are of the opinion that the evidence offered and received upon the trial is ample to sustain the finding of the trial court. No useful purpose would be served by setting out the details of the evidence and for that reason they will be omitted.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.  