Two expressions used by the court in charging the jury are characterized by the defendants as violative of C. S., 564. They are: (I) “All the evidence tends to show a homicide committed in the perpetration of a robbery”; and (2) the State has offered evidence “which it contends tends to show, and which should satisfy you, gentle*275men, beyond a reasonable doubt,” etc. It would be “sticking in tbe bark” to say that these expressions were hurtful to the defendants, or that they contravened the provisions of the statute. S. v. Hart, 186 N. C., 582, 120 S. E., 345.
Furthermore, an erroneous statement of the evidence (S. v. Sinodis, 189 N. C., 565, 127 S. E., 601), or of the contentions of the parties (S. v. Bittings, 206 N. C., 798), if deemed material, should be called to the attention of the court, at some appropriate time before the case is given to the jury, so that he may have an opportunity to correct it. S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737. Otherwise, an exception based thereon is unavailing on appeal. No such complaint was made in the instant case until after verdict.
The record is free from reversible error; hence the verdict and judgments must be upheld. ■