Opinion
31093.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 1, 1946. REHEARING DENIED MARCH 21, 1946.
Assault with attempt to murder; from Screven superior court — Judge Renfroe. September 15, 1945.
C. L. Hilton, for plaintiffs in error.
Fred T. Lanier, solicitor-general, J. Henry Howard, contra.
1. There being apparently no effort to brief the evidence in the case, and the paper filed as a brief of the evidence being apparently a full transcript of the stenographic report, containing all the questions to the witnesses and their answers, it is not in accordance with the requirements of § 70-305 of the Code.
2. Such a paper being brought to this court as a brief of evidence will not work a dismissal of the writ of error. But if no question can be determined without a consideration of the evidence, an affirmance will be the result. Crumbley v. Brook, 135 Ga. 723 ( 70 S.E. 655); Moore v. Walton, 155 Ga. 481 ( 117 S.E. 743); Augusta-Aiken Ry. c. Co. v. Andrews, 20 Ga. App. 789 ( 93 S.E. 543).
3. Special ground 3 of the motion for new trial is as follows: "The court erred in failing to fully give to the jury in charge the law of self-defense." Even if this exception was not dependent upon a consideration of the evidence, it is insufficient to present any question for the consideration of this record. "It is settled that a charge abstractly correct in itself is not erroneous merely because an additional instruction especially desired to fit the facts of a particular case is not added by the court ex mero motu, in the absence of a timely written request that the instruction be completed as desired." Brown v. State, 163 Ga. 684 (5) ( 137 S.E. 31).
4. The other grounds of the motion for new trial can not be determined without a consideration of the evidence, and therefore an affirmance results.
Judgment affirmed. Broyles, C. J., and Gardner, J., concur.