There was no error in admitting the testimony set out in one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial; the other grounds thereof, complaining of the admission and exclusion of testimony, do not disclose what was the testimony to which they referred; there was no error in charging upon the law of voluntary manslaughter; the instructions especially excepted to were substantially correct and applicable to the case ; the requests to charge were properly refused, and there was sufficient evidence to warrant the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.