
    STATE v. CLARENCE HENRY SEIPEL.
    (Filed 6 April, 1960.)
    Criminal Law § 97—
    The control of the argument of the solicitor and counsel must be left largely to the discretion of the trial court, and in this case the remarks of the solicitor, apparently invited by remarks of the attorney for defendant in addressing the jury, held not to warrant a new trial.
    Appeal by defendant from Olive, J., at October 1959 Term, of IREDELL.
    Criminal prosecution upon bill of indictment charging defendant with murder in the first degree of one Coyt Arthur Cruse. The Solicitor for the State stated in open court that he would not ask or contend for a verdict in the first degree, but wouldi ask for a verdict of murder in the second degree or manslaughter as the evidence may warrant.
    Plea: Not guilty.
    Verdict: Guilty of manslaughter.
    Judgment: Confinement to the State Prison for not less than ten nor more than fifteen years.
    To the judgment and signing thereof by the court, defendant excepted and in open court gave notice of appeal, and appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.
    
      Attorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General McGalliard for the State.
    
    
      John R. McLaughlin for defendant, appellant.
    
   Per Curiam.

Careful consideration of matters to which assignments of error relate fails to reveal prejudicial error for which the judgment below should be disturbed. The evidence shown in the record of case on appeal makes a case for the jury sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, upon which the judgment below is predicated.

Indeed the principal error assigned relates to remarks made by the Solicitor in his argument to the jury to which defendant objected. In respect thereto the record discloses that the remarks of the Solicitor were apparently invited by remarks of the attorney for defendant in addressing the jury. As to such matter, the control of arguments of Solicitor and of counsel to the jury must be left largely to the discretion of the trial court. Such is the case here. A new trial is not justified.

No error.  