A careful examination of each of tbe exceptions made by tbe prisoner reveals no question tbat requires discussion, or tbat has not already been passed upon in some previous case. Tbe exceptions evidently were taken out of abundant caution, and sbow tbat tbe prisoner’s counsel were alert to do tbeir utmost duty in a defense wbicb they conducted by assignment of tbe Court and without pecuniary recompense. They have done tbeir full duty. Upon tbe trial, few points of law were presented, and these were ruled correctly by tbe careful presiding Judge. Tbe controversy was almost solely upon tbe facts, and what they were, and what they proved were matters exclusively in tbe province of tbe jury, and not reviewable here.
Tbe point perhaps most earnestly pressed here was tbe following: Tbe prisoner asked tbe Court to instruct tbe jury, “Where tbe act or language of a person may be attributed to two motives, one criminal, tbe other not, the law will ascribe it to tbat wbicb is innocent.” Tbe Court gave this, but added: “This is a general rule, and applies in this case, unless tbe testimony convince tbe jury tbe criminal motive is tbe true one.” Tbe prisoner excepted to tbe addition, but, as it simply amounts to telling tbe jury tbat such, presumption is rebuttable, we find no error therein.
Affirmed.