
    FRED AUSTIN et al. v. STATE.
    No. A-3216
    Opinion Filed April 1, 1920.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 15, 1921.
    (194 Pac. 457.)
    (Syllabus.)
    APPEAL AND ERROR — Absence of Brief — Review. On appeal from a judgment of conviction in a felony case when no briefs are filed or argument presented, this court will make an examination of the record, and if no fundamental error is apparent, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction, the judgment will be affirmed.
    
      Appeal from District Court, Garfield County; J. C. Robberts, Judge.
    
    Fred Austin and Joe Austin were convicted of conducting a gambling game, and they appeal.
    Affirmed.
    
      H. J. Sturgis, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      W. C. Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   DOYLE, P. J.

The plaintiffs in error were convicted and the punishment of each assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for one year and - a fine of $500- on an information which in substance charges that in Garfield county, on or about the 22d day of February, 1917, Fred Austin and Joe Austin did then and there unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously open, cause to ¡be opened, and conducted and carried on a gambling game, which game was played with cards for money, chips, credits, and other representatives of value. From the judgment rendered on the verdict, an appeal was taken by filing-in this court on December 6, 1917, a petition in error with case-made. No (brief has been filed and there has been no appearance on behalf of the defendants on their aippeal.

An examination of the record discloses that no exceptions were taken during the course of the trial. The' testimony of the several witnesses for the state supports the allegations of the information. The testimony of' the defendants and two or three other witnesses tended to support the plea of not guilty. However, the proof on the part of the state seems to have satisfied the jury as to the defendants’ guilt. We find no error affecting the merits of the case.

The judgment of the district court of Garfield county is therefore affirmed.

ARMSTRONG and MATSON, JJ., concur.  