
    J. B. Kindred v. The State.
    1—When no statement of fact appears in the transcript from the court below, this court can not notice an- assignment of error that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence; nor can it, in considering the charge of the court below, assigned as error, do more than determine whether it correctly announces the law as abstract propositions, irrespective of what may have been the particular facts of the case.
    Appeal from Lavaca. Tried below before the Hon. Wesley Ogden.
    The appellant was indicted and convicted of an aggravated assault, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of one hundred and fifty dollars. Being refused a new trial, h'e appealed.
    No briefs for either side.
   Lindsay, J.

On the application for a new trial, the motion was grounded upon the alleged reasons: 1. That the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence. 2. That the court erred in the charge of the law to the jury.

As there is no statement of facts in the record, the court can not notice the first of these reasons. And as to the second, in considering, the charge, the court, for want of the facts, can only determine whether the law announced in the charge is abstractly correct.

In scrutinizing that charge, this court finds no principle announced unsanctioned by law. Whether the facts proved upon the trial required the enunciation of all the principles contained in the charge, this court has no means of knowing. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed,  