
    (76 South. 703)
    No. 22804.
    STATE v. PETERS.
    (Oct. 29, 1917.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Criminal Law <&wkey;>1020 — Appeal—Jurisdiction — Extent op Penalty.
    Where the punishment imposed in a criminal case is not sufficient to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, that court cannot take jurisdiction because of the pendency of another case in which the sentence imposed is sufficient for jurisdiction; the other case being in no way involved in the present case.
    O’Niell, J., dissenting.
    Appeal from Twenty-Sixth Judicial District O'ourt, Parish of Washington; Prentiss B. Garter, Judge.
    Carrie Peters was convicted of an offense, and she appeals.
    Appeal dismissed.
    
      Osceola H. Carter, of Eranklinton, for appellant. A. Y. Coco, Atty. Gen., and J. Vol Brock, List. Atty., of Eranklinton (Vernon A, Coco, Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the State.
   PROVO STY, J.

The learned counsel for accused admits that the punishment imposed in this case is not sufficient to bring the case within the jurisdiction of this court, but he contends that the sentence in the other case at this time before the court against the same accused (No. 22,805, 76 South. 702) 0n a like charge is sufficient for jurisdiction, and that the two cases ought to be taken together. The other case is in no way involved in the present one; hence the sentence in it cannot serve as a basis for jurisdiction in the present one.

Appeal dismissed.

See dissenting opinion of O’NIELL, J., 76 South. 703. 
      
       Ante, p. 249,
     