Jurado

The defendant was charged with the crime of murder and found guilty of manslaughter. He appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

[1] The brief for appellant reviews at length the evidence presented at the trial; it being contended that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict. But the evidence is legally sufficient to justify the verdict. Among other things, one who claimed to be an eye-witness to the attack which resulted in the death of Jose Monges stated facts which, if true, would have warranted a verdict of murder in the first degree. Apart from this testimony, there is evidence of other circumstances which might have discredited the witness last mentioned and yet would have been sufficient to support the verdict of manslaughter. It is not for this court to weigh conflicting evidence upon issues of fact.

The remaining points relate to claimed errors in the instructions given to the jury. In no instance is it asserted that a proposition of law is erroneously stated in any of these instructions. We are told that certain instructions are “erroneous, misleading, and prejudicial” in that there was no testimony in the case which…