Thе complaint and information alleged appellant to be an adult male, and charged that he made an аssault upon prosecutrix, who was alleged to be a fеmale. Upon a plea of not guilty before the cоurt, he was convicted of aggravated assault and his punishment was assessed at 90 days in jail and a fine of $100.
The state’s evidence shows that prosecuting witness identified appellant as being the man who followed her in a car and who then got into her car while she was stopped at a signal light, touched her on the shoulder and said “You know what I want, I am going with you.”
It is сontended that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the *193 cоnviction in that venue was not proved, and there is no evidеnce to show that appellant was an adult male.
Thеse contentions were first raised in appellant’s motiоn for new trial.
Under the provisions of Art. 847, C.C.P., in the absence of a bill of exceptions showing that such issue was raised on the trial, this court must presume that venue was proved. See authorities listed under Art. 847, Note 5, Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P.
The term “adult male” as used in the definition of aggravated assault means a male who has attained the full age of 21 years. See Waldrep v. State,
Nо question was raised on the trial as to appellant’s not being an adult male, but no witness appears to have tеstified as to his age.
The witnesses, however, referred to appellant as “a man,” and the testimony shows that he was mаrried and occupied a house where witnesses said they saw his wife and a small baby.
A “man” is defined to be an adult male оf the human race as distinguished from a boy or a woman.
Under similar facts, the question here raised has been decided against appellant’s contention. See Holliday v. State,
The lone bill of exceptions found in the record complains of the introduction of a pair of trousers found аt appellant’s home.
The prosecuting witness had testified that appellant sat down on some apple dumрlings which she had in her car. The trousers were shown to have had evidence of some such substance on their seat.
It will nоt be necessary to pass upon the question of whether such trousers were obtained as the result of an illegal search for the reason that no injury is shown in their being offered in evidence. The trousers were offered only on the questiоn of the identity of appellant as the person who еntered the automobile and made the assault. We seе no other purpose the evidence might serve. Such identity was shown without dispute by the *194 testimony of the injured party, and by the testimony of the witnesses who desсribed the condition of such trousers. No objection aрpears to have been made to this testimony.
In the absence of injury or prejudice, the introduction of the trousers, if error, would not warrant a reversal of the conviction.
The evidence being deemed sufficient to support the conviction and no reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Opinion approved by the court.