
    State of Maine versus City of Bangor.
    A motion in arrest of judgment, can only be entertained, for matters apparent on inspection of the record.
    Where proof is required to support the motion, it cannot prevail.
    On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Hathaway, J., presiding.
    Indictment for neglect of keeping highways in repair.
    A verdict was rendered against the defendants, and before judgment, they moved in arrest, for the reason that another and different indictment for similar neglect was found against them at the same term when the present indictment was found.
    The motion was overruled and defendants excepted.
    
      A. Sanborn, in support of the exception.
    
      Evans, Att’y Gen’l, contra.
    
   Shepley, C. J.

— After verdict a motion was made in arrest of judgment, for a cause not apparent from a record of the case, but requiring proof to be made by the introduction of the record of another case.

A motion in arrest of judgment can be entertained only for matters apparent upon an inspection of the record. Bangor Bank v. Treat, 6 Greenl. 207; Root v. Henry, 6 Mass. 504; Watt's case, 4 Leigh, 672; State v. Heyward, 2 Nott & McCord, 312; Gardner v. The People, 3 Scam. 83; Steward v. The State, 13 S. & M. 573.

It is not therefore necessary to consider, whether the objection would have been effectual, if it had been properly and seasonably presented. Exceptions overruled.

Tenney, Howard and Appleton, J. J., concurred.  