
    L. Anderson v. The State.
    See the Statement of this Case for an entry on the minutes of the court, below which is held to be sufficient to show compliance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure in regard to the presentment of the indictment in court, and the entry thereof upon its minutes. Pasc. Dig., Arts. 2857, 2858.
    Appeal from the District Court of Colorado. Tried below before the Hon. E. Lewis.
    The indictment was for assault with intent to murder, and the verdict, guilty, with five years’ service in the penitentiary.
    The entry in the minutes of the court below, to which reference is made in the opinion and the head-note, is as-follows:
    “ Sept. 6th, 1876. This day the grand jury appeared in open court, with their foreman, and presented the following indictments, to wit:
    
      “The State of Texas v. Levi Anderson. No. 1478. Assault with intent to kill and murder.”
    No brief for the appellant.
    
      George McCormick, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   Ector, P. J.

The motion of the appellant, in the lower court, to quash the indictment was properly overruled. That portion of the record of the minutes of the district court of December 6, 1876, which is given in defendant’s motion, is sufficient to show that the indictment is the action of the grand jury of Colorado county, and that the grand jury presented it in open court, and delivered the same to the judge of the district court of Colorado county, a quorum of said jury being present .on such occasion. In fact, the entry upon the minutes of the court is sufficient to show that the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Articles 2857 and 2858 (Pasc. Dig.) were substantially complied with.

The indictment is good, and it appears therefrom that it was presented in a court having jurisdiction of the offense set forth in it, and it appears to be the act of a grand jury of the proper county.

The evidence, as it appears in the record, is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. The court did not commit any material error calculated to injure the rights of the defendant.

Affirmed.  