
    (98 South. 855)
    No. 26375.
    STATE v. HEBERT.
    (Jan. 7, 1924.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Criminal law <&wkey;l 160 — Supreme Court will not review bill of exceptions presenting fact question merely.
    Where the only bill of exceptions was reserved to the overruling of a motion for new trial based on the plea that the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence, the Supreme Court will not review the findings of ’the trial judge, the question presented being merely one of fact.
    Appeal from Fifteehth Judicial District Court, Parish of Allen; Thos. F. Porter, Jr., Judge.
    Oscar Hebert was convicted of selling liquor for beverage purposes,, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    A. R. Mitchell, of Lake Charles, for appellant-.
    A. Y. Coco, Atty. Gen., and John J. Robira, Asst. Dist: Atty., of Jennings (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, and A. J. Bordelon, of Marksville, of counsel), for the State.
    By .Division A, composed of O’NIELL, C. J., and BRUNOT and ROGERS, JJ.
   BRUNOT, J.

The defendant has appealed from a conviction and sentence for selling intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes.

There is only one bill of exception in the record. It was reserved to the overruling of a motion for a new trial. The motion is based upon the plea that the verdict is1 contrary to the law and evidence, but as it merely presents a question of fact this court cannot review the finding of the trial judge thereon.

For these reasons, the verdict and sentence appealed from are affirmed.  