
    Roberson v. Commonwealth.
    (Decided May 31, 1912.)
    Appeal from Carlisle Circuit Court.
    1. Bill of Exceptions — Stenographer’s Transcript Not, Approved by Circuit Judge Insufficient. — A bill of exceptions is necessary to bring to the Court of Appeals questions as to the correctness of the rulings of the trial court. A transcript of the testimony certified by the stenographer and not approved by the circuit judge, or filed by an order of that court, is insufficient.
    2. Bill of Exceptions — Absence of — Presumption.—In the absence of a bill of exceptions it will be presumed that the trial court ruled correctly.
    H. L. WAGGONER for appellant.
    JAMES GARNETT, Attorney General, M. M. LOGAN, Assistant Attorney General for appellee.
   Opinion op the Court by

Chiep Justice Hobson — ■

Affirming.

Letch Roberson was indicted in the Carlisle Circuit Court for the crime of robbery, it being charged in the indictment that he feloniously took $18, the property of Eula Roberson, from her person and against her will, forcibly and by putting her in fear. On the trial before a jury, he was found guilty of the charge, and his punishment fixed at confinement in the penitentiary from two to ten years. He appeals.

The mattérs relied on for reversal occurred on the trial, and no bill of exceptions was filed. The record contains an order granting an appeal, but there is no order in the record relating to a bill of exception in any way, and there is no bill of exception in the' record. The transcript of the evidence heard on the trial, and certified by the official stenographer, has been filed in this court, but it is not approved by the circuit judge. The only way in which rulings of the circuit court on the trial may be brought to this court for review, is by bill of exceptions filed in the circuit court, as provided by the Code of Practice. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, it must be presumed that the circuit court ruled right. The record before us is entirely silent as to the instructions given to the jury by the court, and the transcript of the evidence cannot be considered, as it is not properly certified and was not filed in the circuit court.

We have examined, however, the transcript of the evidence, and do not find that it affords appellant any ground of complaint, the testimony for the Commonwealth made out a case against him, and the verdict of the jury is sustained by the weight of the testimony.

Judgment affirmed.  