Mungin v. State

Eisn, C. J.

1. The remarks of the judge addressed to counsel for the accused in presence of the jury, of which complaint is made in the amendment to the motion for new trial, do not amount to an expression of an opinion on a material matter involved in the case, and do not afford ground for a reversal.

2. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.