¶1 The defendant assigns as error the failure of the court below to grant his motions for judgment as of nonsuit. These exceptions are without merit. The evidence favorable to the State was such as to require its submission to the jury on the charge of murder in the first degree. It fully sustains the verdict returned by the jury.
¶2 A number of other assignments of error are directed to the alleged error of the court in excluding testimony. These assignments cannot be sustained. Some of the evidence the defendant sought to develop was immaterial. Some was mere repetition and objection thereto was sustained on that ground. Furthermore, in each instance, the record fails to disclose what the answer of the witness would have been had he been permitted to testify. Newbern v. Hinton, 190 N. C., 108, 129 S. E., 181; S. v. Brewer, 202 N. C., 187, 162 S. E., 363.
¶3 The court in its charge fully and correctly instructed the jury upon defendant’s contention that at the time of the homicide he was so drunk that he was unable to premeditate and deliberate or even to recall anything that occurred at the time. The charge was in strict accord with the law as stated in former opinions of this Court. S. v. Cureton, ante, 491, and cases there cited. Defendant’s exceptive assignments of error based upon excerpts therefrom cannot be sustained.
¶4 Defendant further complains that the court failed to charge the law of self-defense. He bases this contention upon his testimony that the last time he remembered seeing the deceased alive was while they were in the woods where she was later found; and that “she was (then) standing up with a jar in her hand.” There is nothing in this evidence which even suggests that the defendant struck the deceased in his own necessary defense. Nor does he contend that the deceased actually committed an *569 assault upon hixn. He testified tbat be sent ber for a jar of whiskey and tbat sbe went for it. It may be assumed, therefore, tbat be later saw ber with the jar in ber band. Tbat alone is not sufficient to sustain a plea of self-defense or to require the trial judge to charge the jury upon the law in respect thereto.
¶5 Nor does this record present a case in which it was the duty of the court to charge upon the law of circumstantial evidence. True, it may be said tbat to some small extent the State relied upon circumstances in making out its case against the defendant. However, primarily it was a case of direct evidence and as to the actual homicide the State relied principally upon the statements of the defendant to the officers and to others on the day of the homicide and thereafter. S. v. Shew, 196 N. C., 386, 145 S. E., 679; S. v. O’Neal, 187 N. C., 22, 120 S. E., 817; S. v. Ellis, 203 N. C., 836, 167 S. E., 67.
¶6 We have examined the defendant’s other exceptive assignments of error. None of them contain sufficient merit to require discussion.
¶7 In the trial below we find
¶8 No error.