
    THE STATE v. CAPASO, Appellant.
    Division Two,
    May 13, 1902.
    The appeal in this case being wholly without merit, the judgment is affirmed.
    Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Mon. M. D. Wood, Judge.
    Arkirmed.
    
      J. B. Claiborne and Ben F. Clark for appellant.
    
      Fdward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and 8am B. Jeffries, Assistant Attorney-General, for the ■ State.
    
      (1) The first cause set out in the motion for a new trial is: “Because the verdict is against the evidence and the weight of the evidence.” ' The record discloses ample evidence upon which to base a verdict of guilty by the jury. As long as there is some evidence showing guilt, the verdict will not be disturbed. (2) “Because the verdict is against the law,” constitutes the second cause for a new trial. The law of the case was clearly set out in the instructions of the trial court. The verdict was justified by the law and the evidence. (3) An examination of the record will disclose that no objection was made to any of the instructions at the time they were given by the court. According to the well-settled policy of this court, the objection comes too late when first raised in the motion for new trial. State v. Elanders, 118 Mo. 227; State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 100. (4) Defendant failed to except to the action of the court in overruling the motion for new trial. Such being the ease, he has no right to insist on a reversal of the cause by this court, on account of any allegation in the motion. The indictment is in good form; the record shows legal trial, and, the verdict being unobjectionable, the judgment of the trial court should not be disturbed.
   GANTT, J.

— The defendant was indicted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis for a felonious assault with intent to kill Muncio Ponte, and was convicted, and being under the age of eighteen years was sentenced to the Reform School for Boys for two years.

The indictment was sufficient and no error is alleged or shown in the record proper. No brief has been filed on part of-defendant, and no counsel appeared for him when the cause was heard in this court.

We have looked to the motion for new trial to ascertain the grounds upon which he seeks a reversal. The objection that the verdict was against the evidence is without merit. The defendant without provocation shot the prosecuting witness -who was unarmed. No specific instruction is pointed out as error in tire motion, but we have examined all that were given and they are such, as have often met our approval. No exceptions were saved to the giving of any of them and no exception saved to the overruling of the motion for new trial.

This appeal appears to be wholly without merit and the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.  