
    (80 South. 889)
    No. 23359.
    STATE v. LAPENTA.
    (Feb. 3, 1919.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Criminal Law <&wkey; 1090(1) — Appeal — Bills of Exception.
    In order for the Supreme Court to review proceedings of a district court in a criminal case, complaints thereto should be embraced in bills of exceptions.
    Appeal from Twenty-Fifth Judicial Disitrict Court, Parish of Tangipahoa; Robert S. Ellis, Judge.
    Peter Lapenta was convicted of crime, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Purser & Magruder, of Amite, for appellant.
    A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and M. J. Allen, Dist. Atty., of Amite (Tilomas W. Robertson, of New Orleans, of counsel), for the State.
   SOMMERVILLE, J.

The record in this case presents only a motion for a new trial, which, motion embraces the alleged facts upon which the accused was convicted. No bill of exceptions was taken to the ruling of the court on the motion, and there is no assignment of errors contained in the record.

In order for the court to review proceedings in criminal cases of a district court, complaints thereto should be embraced in bills of exceptions. No questions of law are presented to the court for determination in the case. Defendant has failed to prosecute his appeal by making either a printed or an oral argument.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.  