
    Merrill v. The State.
    
      Unlawfully Killing Animal.
    
    (Decided June 9, 1914.
    65 South. 709.)
    1. Rew Trial; Criminal Case; Review. — -The appellate court cannot review the action of the trial court on a motion for a new trial in a criminal case.
    2. Trial; Remarles of Counsel. — Where there was evidence tending to show such a condition of affairs, the remarks of a state’s counsel in argument that defendant had offered to pay for a hog, and inquiring why he had not done so, and why he did not explain, and calling on defendant’s counsel to explain, were not objectionable.
    Appeal from. St. Clair Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. James E. Blackwood.
    W. O. Merrill was convicted of unlawfully or maliciously killing a hog, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Omitting formal charging part, the indictment is as follows:
    W. O. Merrill, whose name is otherwise unknown to the grand jury, did unlawfully, or wantonly, or maliciously kill a hog, the property of William Minick.
    The demurrers do not appear from the record. The remarks of the solicitor objected to are as follows:
    “Mr. Merrill offered to pay for the hog; why Mr. Merrill offered to pay for this, and why he did not explain, I call upon counsel for defendant to explain.”
    No counsel marked for appellant.
    R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
   THOMAS, J.

The indictment followed the Code form (71), and was for the offense denounced by section 6230 of the Code.

The bill of exceptions shows several objections taken to the action of the court in its rulings on the admission and rejection of evidence, but these objections are so clearly without merit that we do not deem it necessary to discuss them, especially since appellant’s counsel does not consider them of sufficient merit or importance to warrant the filing of a brief in support of them. Sections 6230 and 6231 and the appropriate authorities cited under these sections answer and destroy every point made.

The objection to the remarks of the solicitor was likewise without merit. — Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476.

The law does not authorize us to review the action of the lower court in overruling a motion for a new trial in a criminal case.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.  