The evidence in this case tends to disclose a brawl in a common fish camp dive, following a game of poker, in'which Jackson assaulted both Heafner and Taylor with a blackjack, and Blackwell assaulted Heafner with a blackjack and a 2x4. As the defendants did not demur under G. S., 15-173, it is concededly sufficient to sustain the charge.
There is no testimony in the record tending to show that Jackson fought in self-defense or in defense of his property or to quell a dis-*762turbanee such, as would require the court, without special prayer, to explain the law applicable to his right to do so.
The other exceptions are without substantial merit. As they present no new or novel question of law we need not discuss them.
The three indictments returned by the grand jury relate to one assault in which it is alleged the defendants acted in concert. The court below properly consolidated for trial. Yet the appeals are brought here on separate records, Conley v. Pearce-Young-Angel Co., 224 N. C., 211, 29 S. E. (2d), 740, which merely renders it more difficult for us to consider the merits of the case. We again call attention to the rule, Rule 19 (2), Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N. C., 554, which was adopted for a purpose. It should be observed by counsel.
In the trial below we find
No error.