At the trial no exception was taken to the charge or to any of the rulings of the court (Com. v. Bolan, 79 Pa. Super. 52) and since we do not have the evidence before us on this appeal, the presumption is that the trial proceeded according to law and that the defendant's rights were fully protected. We are confined to the record before us: Com. v. Di Angelino, 87 Pa. Super. 585. But considering the remaining assignments as though supported by exceptions in the record, we find no merit in them.

The defendant testified in his own behalf and it does not appear from the record that there were any witnesses who would testify to relevant and material facts tending to show the innocence of the accused. The action of the court is supported by Com. v. Di Angelin, 87 Pa. Super. 585, in which the same subject was under consideration. Moreover, it does not appear that the appellant had any defense in the cases tried. It appears from the statement of facts he was acquainted with Cohen and introduced him to one or more of the Commonwealth's witnesses as a person who was dealing in narcotic drugs and could supply them with what they wanted; that he, in company with Cohen, met two or more of the Commonwealth's witnesses, at different times, when narcotic drugs were sold to the latter in various quantities, the aggregate amount of which sales was equal to two hundred and fifty thousand normal doses of such drugs.