
    Patton v. The State.
    There was no error in the charges complained of, the verdict was demanded by the evidence, and the court was right in refusing a new trial. The bill of exceptions in this ease is absolutely without merit.
    April 10, 1893.
    Indictment for robbery. Before Judge Bartlett. Bibb superior court. November term, 1892.
    Patton was found guilty of robbery, and Ms motion for a new trial was overruled. The motion alleges, that the verdict was contrary to law, evidence, etc., and that the court erred in charging: “ The State claims to have shown the defendant’s connection with the alleged robbery by proving the indication of certain clothes worn by the defendant, Patton, that night; by proving bloodstains upon them; that the defendant was seen shortly afterwards with blood upon his hands and breast. That is all a question for the jury to determine. Look to the evidence and see whether the facts are established, and if established, give them such weight as you think they are entitled to as throwing light upon the transaction.” Alleged to be error, “because the defendant, according to the evidence, never had time to change his pants, and that these pants that were carried to the city hall were not worn by defendant that night.” Further error is-assigned on the charge giving the law of confessions, “ because the court ought not to have charged on the subject of confessions; the confession contended for by the State having been brought out by police officer who represents himself to be a friend of the prisoner, calls him by his given name and tells him it would go lighter with him, or would be best for him to tell it, if there was anybody else with him;—in a word, the confession was brought out by the inducement by the officer who^ had him in charge.” This assignment seems to be based entirely upon the defendant’s statement. The evidence is directly to the contrary.
   Judgment affirmed.

John B. Cooper, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Felton, Jr., solicitor-general, contra.  