
    State of Iowa v. Harvey Owens, Appellant.
    Conviction: transoript of shorthand notes: Review. Where the clerk’s transcript fails to show that the notes of the shorthand reporter have been extended into long-hand or that a transcript thereof has been filed in the district court, and the attorney general denies that the evidence was properly preserved and made of record, appellant is required to furnish a transcript from the clerk establishing the fact; and in the absence of such transcript questions depending on the evidence cannot be considered.
    
      Appeal -from Davis District Court. — HoN. F. W. Eichel- , BERGER, Judge,
    
      Friday, October 6, 1899.
    Due'ENdaNT was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of larceny, and from the judgment pronounced appeals.—
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      II. 0. Traverse and II. 0. Tailor for appellant.
    
      Milton Remley, Attorney General, and D. II. Payne for the State.
   Deemer, J.

The attorney general calls our attention to the fact that no bill of exceptions was ever prepared and signed, that there has never been any transcript of the shorthand reporter’s notes filed in the district court, and that the evidence has not been preserved and filed as required by law. An examination of the clerk’s transcript, which has been certified to this court, discloses the fact that the trial judge signed a skeleton bill of exceptions, in which he certified that the notes of the shorthand reporter filed in the district court on September 16, 1898, together with the exhibits and documentary evidence therein referred to, contain all the evidence adduced upon the trial. It does not appear, however, that these notes have been extended into' longhand, or that a transcript thereof has at any time been filed in the district court. If any such transcript was filed, it has not been certified to this court. As the attorney general has specifically denied that the evidence was properly preserved and made of record, appellant is required, under the rules, to furnish a transcript from the clerk establishing the fact. We cannot consider any question depending on the evidence adduced. All questions argued by appellant, save one relating to the instructions, involve rulings on evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The instruction complained of is correct as an abstract proposition of law. Whether or not it was applicable to the proven facts, we cannot determine. We have examined the whole record with care, and discover no prejudicial error. The judgment of the district court is AEEIRMED.  