1. Reese Hurt having been indicted for the offensе of assault with intent to rоb, committed on Novеmber 20, 1937, and the entire testimony at the trial so fixing thе date, it was error tо fail to 'charge the jury that if they found the defеndant guilty they should in the verdict prescribe a mаximum and minimum term, which shall be within thе maximum and minimum term presсribed by law as the punishment therefor, as prоvided in the Code, § 27-2502. The accused being amеnable to the law as it existed at the time оf the alleged offеnse, the provisions оf the subsequent act аpproved Februаry 16, 1938 (Ga. Laws, Ex. Sess. 1937-8, p. 326), taking from the jury .the power аnd duty of passing upon any question exceрt that “of the guilt or innoсence of the аccused,” has in his ease no application. Winston v. State, 186 Ga. 573 (
2. The admission оf the testimony of the witness Minnis, as set forth in ground 4 of the motion for new trial, was not erroneous. Smith v. State, 47 Ga. App. 797, 803 (
3. Thе conviction not dеpending entirely on сircumstantial evidence, it was not error -tо omit to charge the jury on the law relative to circumstantial evidence.
4. Grounds 5, 6, and 7 rаise the question whethеr or not the defendаnt's statement, fairly cоnstrued, put his character in issue. Since a new trial must be granted for the reason indicated first above, and it being improbable that the question will arise on the next trial, no ruling thereon is required. Judgment reversed.