The charge was correct, full, and fair, on those subjects; and, in the absence of a timely written request so to do, there was no error requiring the grant of a new trial for the failure to instruct the jury specifically with reference to the law of murder and voluntary manslaughter. Kirkland v. State, 68 Ga. App. 124, 125 ( 22 S.E.2d 330), and citations. Consequently, special ground 1 (numbered 4), complaining of the failure to charge the law of murder, and special ground 2 (numbered 5), complaining of the failure to charge the law of voluntary manslaughter, are without merit.

Special ground 5 contends that the first italicized sentence in the foregoing quotation amounts to the expression of an opinion as to the weight and effect of the evidence. The rule in regard to charging the offense of assault with intent to murder, as set out in Kirkland v. State, 68 Ga. App. 124 ( 22 S.E.2d 330) is as follows: "It is not necessary to instruct the jury specifically with reference to the law of murder and voluntary manslaughter; but it is necessary that the essentials of an assault with intent to murder should be included in the instructions given." In Wingate v. State, 68 Ga. App. 265 ( 22 S.E.2d 758) it was held that the charge defining assault with intent to murder was incorrect in that no reference was made to malice, but that the charge as a whole was sufficiently comprehensive as not to require reversal.