
    [Crim. No. 835.
    Third Appellate District.
    April 16, 1925.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. H. BUCK, Appellant.
    
       Criminal Law—Errors—Absence op Specifications—Appeal.-— The appellate court is not required, in the absence of special assignments, in some form, of alleged error, to search the record for the purpose of determining whether or not the trial in the court below was in all respects conducted without prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.
    
       Id.—Incest—Appeal — Record — Evidence—-Verdict. — In this prosecution for the crime of incest, notwithstanding that no brief has been filed on behalf of the defendant and no specification has been made of errors in the trial of the case, the appellate court has, however, carefully read the stenographer’s transcription of the testimony, and has upon such investigation discovered no reason for questioning its sufficiency to justify and support the verdict.
    (1) 17 O. J., p. 181, n. 37. (2) 31 0. J., p. 387, n. 35.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County and from an order denying a new trial. Charles 0. Busick, Judge. Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Hale Day for Appellant.
    U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and J. Charles Jones, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.
   McDANIEL, J., pro tem.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of incest. The appeal to this court is from the judgment of conviction following a verdict of guilty, as charged in the information, and the order denying defendant’s motion for new trial.

The appeal has been submitted upon the record in the case. No brief has been filed on behalf of the defendant, and there has been no specification of errors made in the trial of the case:

As is said in the case of People v. Perry, 16 Cal. App. 771 [117 Pac. 1036]:

“ This court is not required, in the absence of special assignments, in some form, of alleged error, to search the record for the purpose of determining whether or not the trial in the court below was in all respects conducted without prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused.

“We have, however, taken the pains carefully to read the stenographer’s transcription of the testimony, and we have upon such investigation discovered no reason for questioning its sufficiency to justify and support the verdict.”

The judgment and order are, accordingly, affirmed.

Plummer, J., and Finch, P. J., concurred.  