
    Pickett County Beer Board v. McDowell
    
      (Nashville,
    
    December Term, 1946.)
    Opinion filed January 11, 1947.
    
      Ben E. Groce, of Byrdstown, for Ruth. McDowell, plaintiff in error.
    Scott Camp, of Sparta, for Pickett Connty Beer Board, defendant in error.
   Mr. Chief Justice Green

delivered the opinion of the Court..

This proceeding was brought before the Pickett County Beer Board to revoke the beer license of the defendant. It was revoked by the board, she took the case to the circuit court by writ of certiorari and the circuit judge affirmed the action of the beer board. She has appealed in error to this Court.

Motion is made to dismiss the appeal because the record shows that no motion for a new trial was filed and the motion to dismiss must be granted. None of the assignments raised questions which can be disposed of by a consideration merely of the technical record. All the assignments of error find whatever support they may have in the bill of exceptions — in the proof. In such cases coming from a court of law, a motion for a new trial is absolutely essential to a review of the matter in this Court.

The first assignment of error is that the beer board was without legal authority to call the defendant before it because it is said this action was not taken at any legal meeting. So far as the notice itself discloses,,there is nothing to support the contention that it was not ordered at a legal meeting of the board. For any support for this proposition it is necessary to look to the proof.

The other assignments of error all challenge the sufficiency of the evidence and can not be considered in tbe absence of a motion for a new trial.

Board of Equalization et al. v. Nashville C. & St. L. Ry., 148 Tenn. 676, 678, 257 S.W. 91, is controlling bere. That was a proceeding to review an alleged illegal assessment made by tbe Railroad and Public Utilities Commission. A petition for certiorari was granted taking tbe case to tbe circuit court and from tbe judgment in tbe circuit court there was an appeal to tbis Court. The procedure was just sucb procedure as bas been followed in tbe case before us and we beld that in tbe absence of a motion for a new trial .tbe action of tbe circuit court was not reviewable bere. In addition to tbis authority see Rules of tbis Court with respect to assignments of error (4) and (5), 173 Tenn. 875, 876.

Por tbe reasons stated, tbis appeal in error is dismissed.  