
    State of Iowa v. John Bevins, Appellant.
    Instructions sustained: objections held insufficient.
    
      Appeal from Johnson District Court. — Hon. John J. Ney, Judge.
    Wednesday, December 12, 1894.
    Defendant was charged by indictment with having willfully, feloniously, deliberately, premeditatedly, and of his malice aforethought, killed and murdered one Patrick O’Donnell. Having pleaded not guilty, he was put upon trial, and a verdict returned finding him guilty of the crime of manslaughter. His motion to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, was overruled, and judgment that he be imprisoned at hard labor for two years, and that he pay a fine of one hundred dollars and costs, was entered against him, from which he appeals.
    
    Affirmed.'
    
      Manic 4" Bradley, Diving 4~ Hart, and O. A. Byington for appellant.
    
      John Y. Stone, attorney general, for the state.
   Given, J.

The ease is submitted without arguments, and upon a partial transcript showing only the indictment, instructions, verdict, motion for a new trial, and journal entries. We have nothing before us to indicate what are relied upon by appellant as errors, except his motion for a new trial. Many of the grounds of his motion rest upon the evidence and other matters not before us. These grounds can not be considered upon this partial record. The instructions given by the court are, as they must necessarily be in cases involving several degrees of crime, of more than ordinary length. By the motion each and all of the instructions are questioned in a general way, and certain of them somewhat specifically. We have examined the instructions with the care which the importance of the case demands, and especially with reference to the objections somewhat specifically made. To here set out and discuss each of the many paragraphs of the charge would be a useless consumption of space. It is sufficient to say that the instructions contain a full, concise, plain, and correct statement of the law applicable to the several phases of the case. We find no error in them, either as generally or specifically indicated in defendant’s motion, nor in any of the proceedings shown in the record, and the judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.  