
    CHARLEY SMITH v. STATE.
    No. A-1441.
    Opinion Filed March 8, 1913.
    (130 Pac. 517.)
    APPEAL — Affirmance. When a petition in error and case-made are filed in th's court, it is the duty of counsel to prepare and file briefs or appear and orally argue any assignments of error relied upon for reversal. When this is not done, the appeal is treated as abandoned, and in the absence of fundamental error, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed for want of prosecution.
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      ■Appeal from District Court, Le Flore County; Malcolm E. Rosser, Judge.
    
    Charley Smith was convicted of larceny of domestic animals, and brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Tom W. Neal, for plaintiff in error.
    
      C. J. Davenport, Asst. Atty: Gen., for the State.
   ARMSTRONG, P. J.

The plaintiff in error, Charley Smith, was convicted at the April, 1911, term of the district court of Le Flore county on a charge of larceny of domestic animals, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in - the. state penitentiary for a period of three years. The appeal was perfected in this court on the 21st day of October, 1911. The petition in error points out no specific ground for reversal, but generally alleges error in the overruling of the motiQn for new trial and in arrest of judgment. No briefs have been filed by counsel on behalf -of the plaintiff in error, and no appearance made for oral argument. We have examined the record, and find that no constitutional right was denied the accused.

The judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

DOYLE and FHRMAN, JJ., concur.  