1. The defendant was convicted of aggravated assault in slashing the throat and dangerously wounding the victim who had entered his apartment with a woman who had been there earlier in the day and who had returned for her pocketbook. The victim and the only other eyewitness present testified that there was no quarrel and they did not know why the attack was perpetrated. The defendant did not testify; according to a police officer he had made a previous statement that he quarreled with the victim because the latter would not leave the apartment when requested to do so. The evidence, construed in its light most favorable to uphold the verdict, was ample. Huff v. State, 135 Ga. App. 134 (1) (217 SE2d 187)
2. The court held a hearing on the admissibility of certain statements of the defendant to the arresting officers that he had cut the victim's throat with a knife because the latter had refused to leave his apartment. He then ruled that "the defendant was advised of his constitutional rights as required by the Miranda ruling and the statements [were] made freely and voluntarily." This finding is supported by evidence, and the incriminatory statement was properly admitted in evidence. Brazell v. State, 140 Ga. App. 340 (231 SE2d 105)
Dewey Hayes, District Attorney, M. C. Pritchard, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.