
    STATE v. LACY ALEXANDER McDANIEL.
    (Filed 23 May, 1945.)
    Appeal by defendant from Sink, J., at 25 September Criminal Term, 1944, of Greensboro Division of Guileobd.
    Criminal prosecution upon bill of indictment charging defendant with crime of rape of a named female person.
    At 11 September Criminal Term, 1944, of Superior Court of Guilford, in apt time, before Dixon, S. J., defendant entered challenge to tbe array and moved to quash tbe bill of indictment on ground that there were irregularities in preparation of jury list from which names of jurors, including those selected as grand jury, were drawn. Tbe court, after bearing evidence in that respect, found as a fact that tbe provisions of tbe statute have been complied with, that tbe jury list was legally prepared in good faith and without corruption, and that tbe drawing of names for jury for tbe term, as well as tbe drawing of grand jury, was done by a child under tbe age of ten years, as required. Thereupon, tbe challenge to tbe array, and motion to quash tbe bill of indictment were denied, and defendant excepted.
    At tbe trial term tbe State offered "evidence tending to show that defendant raped tbe prosecutrix.
    And defendant, as a witness for himself, admitted that be assaulted tbe prosecutrix with tbe intent to rape her, and narrated details in substantial conformity with evidence offered by tbe State, except with respect to consummation of rape.
    Tbe jury returned verdict of guilty of rape as charged in tbe bill of indictment.
    
      Judgment of death by asphyxiation, as provided by law, was pro- ' nouneed by the court.
    Defendant appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.
    
      Attorney-General McMullwn and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the State.
    
    
      D. Newton Farnell, Jr., for defendant, appellant.
    
   Per Curiam.

Careful consideration of each of the several exceptions and assignments of error, which 'counsel for defendant, with commendable diligence and zeal, has urged, in brief and on oral argument, fails to show cause for disturbing the judgment from which appeal is taken. No new questions of law are presented, and the rulings of the court to which exceptions relate are in accord with precedents. The evidence presents a case for the jury. The record proper appears to be in form.

No error.  