This appeal is from a conviction for armed robbery and a ten-year sentence.

Appellant's first three enumerated errors contend that there was a fatal variance between the indictment and the proof presented at the trial. This contention is without merit. De Palma v. State, 225 Ga. 465 (169 SE2d 801) (1969). Furthermore, these contentions were not raised until after conviction.

The fifth enumerated error merely complains that the verdict of the jury was strongly against the weight of the evidence. A review of the transcript clearly shows that the evidence adequately supported the verdict rendered by the jury.