
    (96 South. 646)
    (6 Div. 118.)
    SANFORD v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    May 15, 1923.)
    I. Criminal law &wkey;>l090(l6) — Denial of new trial cannot be reviewed, in absence of bill of exceptions.
    ,In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the Court of Appeals cannot review the ruling of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial in a criminal case.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;1090(!4), 1122(5) — Refused charges cannot be considered on appeal, where no bill of exceptions and oral charge not set out.
    Where, on appeal in a grand larceny case, there is no bill of exceptions, and the court’s oral charge is not set out in the record, the Court of Appeals cannot consider refused charges.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Wm. E. Eort, Judge.
    Henry Sanford was convicted of grand lar-cenc-y, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Robert G, Tate, of Birmingham, for appellant.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
   BRICKEN, P. J.

This defendant was tried and convicted for grand larceny. The property alleged to have been stolen consisted of an automobile belonging to one Abner F. Horton. He was duly sentenced to hard labor for the county, and appeals.

There is no bill of exceptions, and in the absence of same we cannot review the ruling of the court in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. For like reasons and for the further reason, also, that the court’s ural charge is not set out in the record, we cannot consider the refused charges.

No errdr is apparent on the record, and the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.

Affirmed.  