
    Frazier v. The State.
    
      Receiving Stolen Goods.
    
    (Decided January 13, 1914.
    64 South. 162.)
    1. Appeal and Error; Revieto; Sufficiency of Evidence. — In order to have a review of the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to show the crime alleged, there must be some method employed raising that question in the lower court,- such as to request a charge to that effect, or demurrer to evidence.
    2. Same. — The admissibility of evidence cannot be considered on appeal; where no objection or exception thereto is shown by the bill of exceptions. -
    Appeal from Montgomery City Court.
    Heard before Hon. Armstead Brown.
    Steve Frazier was convicted of having received or concealed stoien goods, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Mark D. Brainard, and Hill, Hill & Whiting, for appellant.
    The evidence is not sufficient to show that the goods were stolen, and the defendant was improperly convicted. — Perry v. State, 155 Ala. 93.
    R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
    No exceptions are reserved to the ruling o'f the trial court, and no charges requested raising the questions here' sought to be reviewed. It follows that there is nothing for review.
   PELHAM, J. —

The record in this case shows that the defendant ivas indicted, tried, and found guilty by a jury of having concealed stolen goods, alleged in the indictment to be the property of the Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company.

It is urged by counsel for defendant in brief filed that tbe evidence set out in the bill of exceptions fails to show a larceny of tbe property, or ownership as alleged, and that on the ruling in the case of Perry v. State, 155 Ala. 93, 46 South. 470, it was error to permit the witness Adams, the yardmaster of the railroad company, to testify that the goods checked “short” in the car. We do not see how we can review any of these questions here, as the bill of exceptions shows no objection to any testimony offered, and no exception to have been reserved to the court’s ruling on the evidence or any other matter. If the general charge, or any other charge, ivas requested by the state or defendant, it is not shown by any part of the transcript. The proceedings shown by the record proper are regular and contain no error, and nothing is presented for review of this court in such a condition of the record and bill of exceptions as would require a reversal of the judgment of conviction.

Affirmed.  