Appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and given twenty years in the penitentiary, and prosecutes this appeal. There is no bill of exceptions in the record. Wе will,
*405
however, notice such assignments of error as we deem necessary to a disposition of this case. The court charged on murder in the first and second degrees, manslaughter and self-defense. There is some slight evidence in the record of self-defense, and the court on this subject сharged the jury substantially as follows: “If you believe the defendant killed the deceased, but further beliеve that, at the time of so doing, the deceased made an attack on him, which, from the manner and character of it, and the relative strength of the parties, and the defendant’s knowledge of the character and disposition of the deceased, caused the defendant tо have a reasonable expectation of death or serious bodily injury, that, acting under suсh reasonable expectation or fear, he killed the deceased, then you should аcquit him.” And the court further charged that the danger need not be actual, but apparent. This was all that was called for by the facts of the case bearing upon this phase of it. There is some evidence that when the parties met, just in front of the residence of the defendant, the deceased being on horseback, on his way to Wortham, and defendant having met him m the road in front of his house, after some words between the parties the deceased was seen to turn m his saddle, аnd throw his hand toward his saddlebags, and at this juncture defendant shot him with a shotgun. So, the jury were properly instructed as to self-defense in the charge as above set out. There was nothing in the testimony cаlling for a charge on self-defense, predicated on the idea that deceased hаd attacked, and was in the act of assaulting, the mother of the defendant. If such attempt at assault was made, it had transpired before the shooting, and the mother of the defendant at the time was in her house, out of view of the parties, as she herself testified, and did not see the shooting. The charge on manslaughter, while very general in its terms, was sufficient. The jury were told that an insult towards a fеmale relative of defendant was an adequate cause to reduce the homicide to manslaughter, and then they were instructed that if the defendant killed the deceased in a sudden trаnsport of passion, aroused by adequate cause, as heretofore explainеd, he would be guilty of manslaughter. Appellant complains that the verdict of the jury found the defendаnt
guitiy■
It will be noticed that there is not a loop in either of the letters intended for “1” and “t” and that only thе first of said letters is crossed, the cross not extending over the second. The failure to make a loop in the “1” is not of unusual occurrence, and it often happens that the cross or dаsh in writing the letter “t” is not extended over the proper letter. Unquestionably, this word was written for the prоper word “guilty,” and was so read by the jury in rendering their verdict. It would deceive nobody, and we regard the assignment as hypercritical. See, Harris v. State (Tex. Crim. App.),
Affirmed.