On Petition To Rehear
Plaintiff in error has filed a petition asking a rehearing upon two points.
First. It is asserted that petitioner was prejudiced before the jury by the action of the Trial Judge in ordering State’s witness Harold Akins to be arrested and placed under bond on the cRarge of perjury. TRe rule relied on is that the ordering of the arrest of a witness under such circumstances is “an invasion of the rights of the party offering the witness” (State v. Swink, 151 N.C. 726, 66 S,E. 448). Petitioner did not offer this wit*518ness, and it is not pointed out how the arrest could have harmed his rights.
Second. The petition reasserts his same complaint upon the Trial Judge’s charge as to the punishment in the event the jury found defendants guilty of murder in the first degree with mitigating circumstances. This part of the charge was substantially in the language of the statute (T.C.A. sec. 39-2406); and it is not pointed out how it could have prejudiced petitioner.
Thus, the petition presents nothing new, no, matter of fact or law overlooked, but reiterates matters already fully considered and determined in our former opinion.
The petition is denied at petitioner’s cost.