Howard v. State

Broyles, C. J.

1. The conviction of the accused not depending entirely upon circumstantial evidence, the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence, in the absence of a request therefor, was not error.

2. The other grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are without substantial merit; the charge of the court fully and fairly presented the law of the case and the contentions of the defendant; the verdict was amply authorized, if not demanded, by the evidence; and for no reason assigned was the overruling of the motion for a new trial error.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., coneur.