
    (42 South. 771.)
    No. 16,404.
    STATE v. HUFF.
    (Jan. 7, 1907.)
    1. Juey — Authority to Exquse.
    It is within the statutory discretion of the trial judge, in a criminal case, to excuse a juror for cause, and such action, even if erroneous, affords the defendant no legal ground of complaint.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 31, Jury, § 405.]
    2. Criminal-Law — Argument of Counsel.
    Where, in a prosecution for manslaughter, the district attorney says, in his argument, “So far as the state is concerned, and from .the testimony, we have made, out a case that would sustain a more serious charge, but under the indictment you can only render a verdict of manslaughter,” and, in response to an objection from defendant’s counsel, the court at once instructs the jury that they are to consider nothing save that which concerns the charge against the accused, to wit, manslaughter, and no other relief is asked, and it appears from the statement of the judge that the remark complained of was justified by the evidence, there is no error disclosed.
    [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, § 1693.]
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court, Parish of Livingston; Clay Elliott, Judge.
    Emile Huff was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Reid, Purser & Reid, for appellant. WaL ter Guión, Atty. Gen., and Robert Stephen Ellis, Dist. Atty. (Lewis Guión and Marion Wallace Davidson, of counsel), for the State,
   MONROE, J.

Defendant, having been charged with manslaughter, convicted and sentenced, presents his case to this court by means of bills of exception, as follows:

1. To the ruling of the trial judge in excusing a juror for cause on the objection of the state.

The ruling complained of was within the discretion conferred upon the judge by Act No. 135, p. 216, of 1898, § 1, and, even if erroneous, affords no legal ground of complaint. State v. Waggoner, 39 La. Ann. 919, 3 South. 119; State v. Claire & Gibson, 41 La. Ann. 1067, 6 South. 129; State v. Breaux et al., 104 La. 540, 29 South. 222; State v. Harris, 107 La. 196, 31 South. 646.

2. To the following remark by the district attorney:

“So far as the state is concerned, and from the testimony, we have made out a case that would sustain a more serious charge, but under the indictment you can only render a verdict of manslaughter.”

In response to the objection of the defendant’s counsel, the court at once instructed the jury “that they were not to consider any question or matter of evidence or argument, other than that * * * which concerned the charge against the accused, to wit, manslaughter.” It, however, appears from the statement per curiam that the remark complained of was justified by the evidence. Beyond this, it does not appear that any other relief was asked than that which was granted.

3. To the overruling of a motion for new trial based upon the allegation that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence, this bill presents nothing upon which this court can act, and is abandoned.

Judgment affirmed.  