
    STATE v. BAT DeJOURNETTE, KATE DeJOURNETTE and ELMER WILLIAMS.
    (Filed 14 December, 1938.)
    1. Criminal Law § 77d—
    The Supreme Court can judicially know only what appears from the record.
    S. Criminal Law § 81b—
    When it cannot he determined from the record that the instructions excepted to are prejudicial, the record failing to show how the homicide occurred or what the evidence was, the exceptions cannot be sustained, appellant having failed to show reversible error.
    Appeal by defendant Bat DeJournette from Pless, J., at May Term, 1938, of Guilporb.
    Criminal prosecution, tried upon indictment charging Bat DeJour-nette, bis wife, Kate DeJournette, and Elmer "Williams with tbe murder of one Garland Mangum.
    Upon tbe call of tbe case for trial, Elmer Williams tendered a plea of “guilty of accessory before tbe fact to murder in tbe first degree,” which plea was accepted by tbe State. Tbe defendants Bat DeJournette and Kate DeJournette pleaded not guilty, and were tried by a jury.
    Yerdict: Bat DeJournette, “guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in tbe bill of indictment”; Kate DeJournette, “guilty accessory after tbe fact of murder in tbe first degree.”
    Judgment as to Bat DeJournette: Death by asphyxiation.
    Tbe defendant Bat DeJournette appeals, assigning errors.
    
      
      Attorney-General McMuTlan and Assistant Attorney s-General Bruton and Wettach for.the State.
    
    
      Spencer B. Adams and Broolcs, McLendon & Eolderness for defendant, appellant.
    
   Stacy, C. J.

Tbe transcript consists of tbe record proper, tbe charge of tbe court, and a number of exceptions to tbe charge. This is agreed to as tbe case on appeal. S. v. Dee, ante, 509. Nothing else appears on tbe record. S. v. Ross, 193 N. C., 25, 136 S. E., 193.

With no knowledge of bow tbe homicide occurred or what tbe evidence was — and this is a matter we can know judicially only from tbe record' — • we cannot say tbe instructions complained of are prejudicial or hurtful, even if theoretically they appear to be slightly erroneous in some particulars.

No reversible error having been shown, tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.  