
    (106 So. 298)
    No. 27465.
    STATE v. SMITH.
    (Nov. 2, 1925.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Criminal law 1091(1)—Mere notation by clerk cannot be considered bill of exceptions.
    Mere notation by clerk that defendant excepted, and reserved bills of exceptions cannot be considered a bill of exceptions.
    2. Criminal law <&wkey;f 090(19)—Motion for new trial, without bill of exceptions, presents no question.
    Motion for new trial, without proper and formal bill of exceptions, presents no question of law for review by Supreme Court.
    Appeal from Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Columbus Reid, Judge.
    Dick Smith was convicted of resisting an officer, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Robert M. McGehee, of Hammond, for appellant.
    Percy Saint, Atty. Gen., Percy T. Ogden, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. L. Ponder, Dist. Atty., of Amite, and E. R. Schowalter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LAND, .J.

Under an indictment for resisting an officer, defendant was convicted by a jury of five, and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of not less than 12 nor more than IS months.

Defendant has made no appearance in this court through counsel. However, we have examined the record carefully, and find no error patent upon its face.

While a motion for a new trial is found in the transcript, no formal bill of exceptions was reserved to the overruling of this motion, counsel for defendant having caused a mere notation of reservation of the bill to be entered by the clerk.

A mere notation by the clerk that defendant excepted and reserved a bill cannot be considered a bill of exceptions. State v. Miller, 138 La. 373, 70 So. 330; State v. Simmons, 118 La. 22, 42 So. 582; State v. Bradley, 136 La. 55, 66 So. 395; State v. Carr, 111 La. 716, 35 So. 839.

A motion for a new trial, without a proper and formal bill of exception, presents no question of law for review by this court. State v. Pullen, 130 La. 249, 57 So. 906; State v. Haynes, 133 La. 671, 63 So. 261; State v. Munlin, 133 La. 60, 62 So. 351; State v. Riney, 125 La. 121, 51 So. 89.

The conviction and sentence are therefore affirmed.  