In his motion appellant again lays stress on what he calls the lack of testimony to identify him as the man who robbed the bank in question. We have examined the facts and find that both of the people who were in the bank at the time same was robbed testified positively that appellant was the man who committed the robbery. We are at a loss to know how the identification could be more direct or positive.
The motion for rehearing will be overruled.
Overruled.