
    [Crim. No. 1372.
    Second Appellate District, Division Two.
    April 7, 1926.]
    THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. F. AMY WALLINGTON, Appellant.
    
       Cbiminal Law&emdash;Judgments&emdash;Stay of Execution Pending Appeal &emdash;Delay in Taking Appeal.&emdash;An application for a stay of execution of a judgment under section 1243 of the Penal Oode will be ■denied where it appears from the face of the application that the appeal from the judgment was not taken in time and that the order made after judgment necessarily must be affirmed.
    
       Id. &emdash; Motion to Set Aside Judgment &emdash; Sufficiency of Indictment.&emdash;The sufficiency of an indictment cannot be questioned on a motion made in the lower court to set aside the judgment after it has become final.
    (1) 17 G. J., p. 108, n. 44. (2) 31 C. J., p. 874, n. 87, p. 1326, ,n. 77 New.
    1. See 8 Cal. Jur. 551.
    2. Time and method of objecting to sufficiency of indictment see note in 1 A. L. E. 479.
    APPLICATION for stay of execution pending appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charles S. Burnell, Judge.
    Application denied.
    The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
    Max Schleimer for Appellant.
    No appearance for Respondent.
   THE COURT.

It appears from the faca of the application for a stay of execution of the judgment under section 1243 of the Penal Code that the appeal from the judgment is abortive and that the order made after judgment necessarily must he affirmed. The appeal from the judgment was not taken in time. (Pen. Code, sec. 1239 ; Starr v. Superior Court, 23 Cal. App. 670 [139 Pac. 241].) The sufficiency of the indictment could not be questioned on the motion made in the lower court to set aside the judgment after it had become final. (People v. Mooney, 178 Cal. 525 [174 Pac. 325] ; People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249 [36 A. L. R. 1345, 232 Pac. 457].)

The application for stay of execution is denied.  