
    Sears v. The State.
    
      Assault With Intent to Murder.
    
    (Decided May 21, 1914.
    Rehearing denied June 3, 1914.
    65 South. 300.)
    1. Appeal and Error; Review; Matters Presented. — Where matters complained of are properly shown by the bill of exceptions, and the bill of exceptions on file contained no recital as to such matters or ruling thereon, they cannot be reviewed on appeal.
    2. Same; Barmless Error; Evidence. — If rulings were originally erroneous the error was cured where such rulings were subsequently changed so that defendant was given the benefit of everything he sought to obtain through his objections.
    Appeal from Montgomery City Court.
    Heard before Hon. Gaston Gunter.
    Robert L. Sears was convicted of an assault with intent to murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    L. A. Sanderson, for appellant.
    Counsel discusses assignments of error, as to the court’s rulings on the evidence with citation of authority in support thereof, but in view of the opinion it is not deemed necessary to set them out.
    R. C. II rick ell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   PELHAM, J.

We have carefully examined the transcript in this case, and discover no reversible error. The proceeding's shown in the record proper are regular, and the bill of exceptions contains nothing requiring or meriting discussion; and no matter has been pointed out or called to our attention by argument or brief in behalf of the appellant as constituting error. Let tl'« judgment appealed from be affirmed.

ON REHEARING.

The appellant, in an application for a rehearing, points out and discusses several matters that are insisted upon as showing reversible error. We have again examined the transcript in connection with the contentions of the appellant, and are of opinion that reversible error is not shown by anything insisted upon in the application. Several of the matters argued as showing error are not reviewable here, as no ruling of the trial court in. respect to them is shown b;y any recital contained in the bill of exceptions. Many of the rulings on the evidence that are insisted upon as constituting error are shown to have been subsequently changed, and the defendant to have been given the benefit of everything he was seeking to obtain through his objections. Rulings to which exceptions were reserved that were not cured or rendered nonprejudicial to the defendant are manifestly correct.

Application 'denied.  