
    Delk v. The State.
    1. The general charge being full and fair on the subject of reasonable doubt in connection with the law of self-defence, including reasonable fears, there was no error in refusing to charge: “If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant, Delk, acted when he cut Evans, the deceased, under circumstances calculated to excite the fears of a reasonable man, or whether he felt at the time he cut Evans, the deceased, and had reason to feel from the circumstances, that it was necessary to cut Evans, the deceased, to save his life, limb or person, then he would be justifiable, and you should acquit him,” even if this request was a correct statement of the law. McDuffie v. The State, 90 Ga. 786. Nor was there any error in charging as follows: “But if you do not believe he is guilty of either [murder or voluntary manslaughter] beyond a reasonable doubt, and that this homicide was done in self-defence, then it would be your duty to find the defendant not guilty.”
    2. The verdict for voluntary manslaughter was amply sustained by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial.
    March 14, 1893.
    Indictment for murder. Before Judge Richard IL Clark. Fulton superior court. September term, 1892.
    Jordan & Robinson, for plaintiff* in error.
    C. D. Hill, solicitor-general, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  