The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Appellant was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature upon Jim Starks. The testimony shows that appellant, a youth of seventeen- years, is an illegitimate son of Jim Starks, with whom he was living; that Jim stood toward appellant, at least in loco parentis; that appellant recognized the relation, and called Jim “pa;” that in May, 1910, they were working-in- the same field, — Jim plowing, and appellant hoeing cotton; that Jim went to where appellant was hoeing and -expressed some dissatisfaction with th-e way he was doing the work, and told him how he wanted it done, and started back to his plow; that appellant called to him and asked: “Pa, how long do you want me -to stay, here?” Jim replied: “If you -can not do your work right, and like I want it *123 done, you can quit now.” Thereupon appellant left the field and went to the house and, in a short time, returned with a gun and approached Jim., telling him that he wanted the shirt that he (Jim) had1 on, appellant claiming it as his own. Jim started toward® him to whip him, when appellant shot, inflicting a serious wound. Jim testified that when he started to appellant to whip him he did not think he would shoot him.

The exceptions impute error in refusing to 'direct a verdict and grant a new trial on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence, and1 in charging that a parent has the right to chastise his son. The foregoing statement of the testimony shows that the exceptions are without merit and require no discussion.

Affirmed.