
    MARTIN v. STATE.
    (No. 3950.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 9, 1916.)
    Ceiminal Raw <§=31159^Conviotion — CONCLUSIVE NESS .
    Where the evidence for the state, which was apparently believed, was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and that for the defendant, if believed, would have been sufficient to have secured his acquittal, the sufficiency of the evidence was solely for the jury, and a conviction could not be disturbed on appeal.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074-3083; Dec. Dig. <@=3 1159.]
    Appeal from Fayette County Court; George Willricli, Judge.
    J. M. Martin was convicted of aggravated assault, and lie appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   PRENDERGAST, P. J.

This is an appeal from a conviction for aggravated assault, with only a fine of $25 assessed.

There is no bill of exceptions and no complaint of the charge of the court. The sole question is whether or not the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction. The testimony of the state’s side, which was evidently believed, was amply sufficient to sustain the conviction. That of the appellant’s side, if the jury had believed it, would have been sufficient to have secured his acquittal. That question, however, was solely for the jury. We cannot disturb their verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.  