
    The State v. Moore.
    Appeal: CRIMINAL CASE: EVIDENCE wanting. The appellant’s abstract in this case having been challenged, and he having failed to show that all the evidence in the case is before this court, the questions whether the verdict is contrary to the evidence, or whether the court erred in giving instructions, cannot be determined. The instructions, being abstractly correct, are presumed to have been justified by the evidence.
    
      Appeal from Mills District Court.— Host. A. B. Ti-iornell, Judge.
    Filed, May 15, 1889.
    Indictment for keeping a place where intoxicating liquors were kept for sale and sold contrary to law; trial to a jury; verdict of guilty; motion for a new trial overruled; judgment that defendant pay a fine of five hundred dollars, — to all of which defendant excepts, and from which judgment he appeals.
    
      Watkins & Williams, for appellant,
    A. J Baker, Attorney General, for the State.
   Given, C. J.

The attorney general claims that it is not made to appear by bill of exceptions or otherwise from the record that the evidence taken on the trial is embodied in the appellant’s abstract. This claim being made, it devolves upon appellant to show by a transcript containing a bill of exceptions all the evidence introduced on the trial, or that his abstract on file embodies all the evidence. Without such a showing, we cannot determine whether the verdict is contrary to the evidence or not, nor whether the court erred in giving instructions. The instructions given, taken together, state the law correctly, and, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, we presume they were based upon the testimony. The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.  