
    June Term, 1860.
    Franz vs. The State.
    This court cannot take notice of proceedings had upon the trial of a criminal action, although the minutes of them, as taken by the clerk or judge, are returned by the clerk as part of the record. They must be embraced in a bill of exceptions in order to become a part of the record, or be entitled to notice.
    A sentence in these words, “The court sentences the prisoner as follows: that the said F-F--be punished by confinement in the state prison,” &c., though lacking in formality, purports to be the judgment of the court, and is sufficient.
    ERROR to the Circuit Court for Manitowoc County.
    Franz, indicted jointly with Peglow, for murder, as stated in the preceding case, was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. There was no bill of exceptions made. The only question in this court was as to the validity of the judgment or sentence, which was in these words — ■“ The court' sentences the prisoner as follows: That the said Frederick Franz be punished by confinement at hard labor, in the state prison, at Waupun, for the term of ten years, and that ten days of each year, during said term, be passed in solitary imprisonment.”
    • F. Fox Cook, for plaintiff in error.
    
      J. H. Howe, Attorney Gfeneral, for the state.
    October 15.
   Py the Court,

Dixow, C. J.

With the exception of the form of the sentence which was awarded, the position of this case is precisely the same as that of Peglow vs. The State. At the April term, 1857, of the circuit court for the county of Man-itowoc, the plaintiff in error and Peglow were jointly indicted for the murder of one John W.- Shultz, alleged to have been committed by them in that county, on the ,12th day of December, 1856. At the October term, 1857, they received separate trials. Peglow was found guilty as charged in the indictment. The plaintiff was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentenced by the court to ten years’ imprisonment in the state prison.- There is no bill of exceptions in the case, and we are of opinion that the record shows no error. The only one urged goes merely to the form of •the sentence. By a further return, which was made pursuant to an order of the court, it appears that all the substantial requirements of the statute were complied with; and al-. though the judgment is not recorded with as much precision and formality as it might have been, it nevertheless is sufficiently certain, and does not appear as the-recital or history 'of the clerk, but as the act and consideration of the court, by which it was adjudged, “that the said Frederick Franz be punished by confinement at hard labor, in the state prison at Waupun, for the term of ten years, and that ten days of each year, during said term, be passed in solitary imprisonment.”

The judgment is therefore affirmed.  