Dollor

The appellant was convicted of an assault with a deadly weapon; and the main point upon which he relies for a reversal is the omission of the court to charge the jury fully enough on the subject of self-defense.

Neither party asked any instruction upon any subject. The charge of the court given on its own motion was brief, and what is contained on the subject of self-defense *515 was as follows: “ Now, if you find from the evidence that this party did make any assault with a knife, and you find that knife to be a deadly weapon, and he did it not in necessary self-defense, it is your duty to find him guilty as charged. If you find that he made the assault, and that he did it in necessary self-defense, in order to prevent this Dan Olie from committing a violent assault upon him, then he is not guilty.”

At the conclusion of the charge, the court, turning to counsel, said: “ Anything further than that?” Counsel made no answer.

The point made by appellant is, that the charge ignored the doctrine of “apparent necessity,” and excluded the jury from considering that defendant, as a reasonable man, might have believed himself in danger, although as a matter of fact there was no real…