
    (98 South. 86)
    No. 26183.
    STATE v. KAHN.
    (Nov. 12, 1923.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>l090(18) — Mere notation by olerk of reservation of bill of exceptions cannot be considered by Supreme Court.
    The mere notation by the clerk of the reservation of a bill of exception in a criminal prosecution cannot be considered by the Supreme Court, a formal bill properly drawn and signed being necessary:
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;l090(2) — Act permitting objections to be reserved by clerk’s notation held applicable to civil cases only.
    Act No. 102 of 1877 (Ex. Sess.), permitting an objection to be reserved without the necessity of a formal bill by the clerk’s notation thereof, being an amendment to Code Prac. art. 488, is applicable to civil cases only.
    3. Criminal law &wkey;>l064(l) — When refusal of new trial for newly discovered evidence will not be considered on appeal, stated.»
    A motion for a new trial in a ci'iminal case on the ground of newly discovered evidence will not be considered by the Supreme Court, where there is no allegation of due diligence, no showing as to the nature of newly discovered evidence, no names of the newly discovered witnesses, and the motion is not verified.
    4. Criminal law <&wkey;>l!60 — Supreme Court will not review refusal to grant new trial on general allegation that verdict is contrary to law and evidence.
    The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in a criminal ease on questions of law alone and will not revise the refusal of a new trial on the general allegation that the verdict is contrary to law and evidence.
    Appeal from Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans; Richard A. Dowling, Judge.
    W. I. Kahn, was convicted of embezzlement, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Jos A. Casey, W. R. Kinsella, and John J. Darrieux, all of New Orleans, for appellant.
    A. Y. Coco, Atty. Gen., R. H. Marr, Dist. Atty., and T. V. Craven, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of New Orleans (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
    By Division A, composed of Chief Justice O’NIELL and Justices ROGERS and- BRU-NOT.
   ROGERS, J.

W. I. Kahn was convicted jointly with J. U. Albrecht for embezzlement. Before sentence, both defendants filed a motion for a new trial. The motion was granted as to Albrecht, but refused as to Kahn, and the latter was sentenced to serve six months at hard labor in the state penitentiary. Thereafter, the district attorney nolle prosequied the ease against Albreclit, and Kahn appealed, from his conviction and sentence.

The record contains excerpts from the testimony of some of the witnesses with a notation in each instance, by the clerk, of an objection by counsel for defendants, the adverse ruling of the trial judge thereon, and the reservation of a bill of exception. There is, however, no bill of exception in the transcript.

It is well settled that the mere notation by the clerk of the reservation of a bill of exception in a criminal prosecution cannot be considered by this court. A formal bill, properly drawn and signed, is necessary. State v. Smith, 149 La. 700, 90 South. 28; State v. Miller, 146 La. 236, 83 South. 539; State v. Miller, 138 La. 373, 70 South. 330; State v. Bradley, 136 La. 55, 66 South. 395; State v. Evans, 135 La. 891, 66 South. 259; State v. Carr, 111 La. 716, 35 South. 839.

Act 102 of 1877, Ex. Sess., p. 176. permitting an objection to be reserved, without the necessity of a formal bill, by the clerk’s notation thereof, is an amendment to the Code of Practice, art. 48S, and hence applicable to civil cases only. State v. Jessie, 30 La. Ann. 1170; State v. Dufour, 31 La. Ann. 804; State v. Comstock, 36 La. Ann. 308.

Defendant’s motion for a new trial was made on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the law and the evidence and of newly discovered evidence.

Neither of the grounds urged can be considered by this court. There is no allegation of due diligence; no showing as to the nature of the newly discovered evidence; no names of the newly discovered witnesses; and the motion is not sworn to. This court has appellate jurisdiction on questions of law alone and will not revise the refusal of the trial judge to grant a new trial upon the general allegation that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence.

Judgment affirmed-  