
    STATE v. JAMES MACK WILLIAMS. and STATE v. GEORGE KELLY BOULWARE.
    (Filed 19 October, 1966.)
    Appeal by defendants from McLean, J., April 4, 1966 Regular Schedule Criminal Session, MecKLENbuRG Superior Court.
    The indictment charged that the defendants, on the 5th day of March, 1966, with force and arms unlawfully, wilfully, and fe-loniously made an assault upon Sherman Hickman, putting him in bodily fear and danger of his life; did unlawfully, wilfully, and fe-loniously take and steal from him one gold watch of the value of $15.60 in money.
    Upon arraignment each defendant, through counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. The prosecuting witness immediately notified Mr. Henderson of the Charlotte Police Department of the assault and robbery and pointed out the two defendants as the perpetrators. As Officer Henderson approached the defendants they started to separate. Williams threw away the gold watch which the officer recovered and which the owner identified as the one taken from him. Each defendant testified in his own defense, denying any participation in the assault. Each defendant called other witnesses tending in minor detail to corroborate parts of his story.
    The jury returned verdicts of guilty as to each defendant. Judge McLean imposed prison sentences of not less than nine nor more than 10 years. From the judgments and sentences, the defendants appealed.
    
      T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General for the State.
    
    
      William G. Robinson for defendant Williams.
    
    
      T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Theodore C. Brown, Jr., Staff Attorney for the State.
    
    
      Stagg & Reynolds by William L. Stagg for defendant Boulware.
    
   Per Curiam.

The evidence of the robbery was positive. The identity of the defendants as the perpetrators was equally positive. The victim notified the officers immediately after the assault. They arrested the defendants near the scene. Williams threw away the gold watch which was taken from the prosecuting witness. The officer recovered it. Both defendants had served prison sentences for crimes of violence. The sentences approached but did not exceed the maximum permitted by law. In the trial, we find

No error.  