
    (101 South. 630)
    Ex parte RIALS et al. RIALS et al. v. STATE.
    (4 Div. 172.)
    (Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Oct. 6, 1924.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;l 124(1) — Failure of bill of exceptions to show exception to ruling on motion for new trial fatal to review, although exception appeared in record.
    Although exception to ruling on motion for new trial appeared in record proper, failure of bill of exceptions to show such exception was fatal to, right of review.
    Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
    Petition of John Rials and Ed Jones for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the'case of Rials et al. v. State, 101 So. 629.
    Writ denied.
    E. C. Boswell, of Geneva, for petitioners.
    If the record proper shows motion for new trial, the ruling thereon, and exception noted, the motion nfeed not be set out in ihe bill of exceptions. Cox >v., State, 19 Ala. App. 205, 96 So. 83.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., opposed.
    Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter. 1'
   SOMERVILLE, J.

The petitioner seeks to review a ruling o£ the Court of Appeals refusing to review the action of the trial court in overruling petitioner’s motion for a new trial

The motion in question, the decision of the trial court thereon, and the exception of the defendant thereto, appear in the minute entry incorporated in the record proper. The bill of exceptions fails to show that any exception was taken to the action of the trial court, and this omission is fatal to the right to review. Akin v. Chancy Bros., 207 Ala. 523, 93 So. 408, and cases therein cited.

The Court of Appeals did not err in denying the review sought, and the petition for the writ of certiorari will be denied.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.  