
    No. 10,471.
    The State of Louisiana vs. James Holcombe.
    A verdict and sentence in a criminal case will not be disturbed when the transcript contains no motion to quash, no bill of exception, no motion in arrest, no assignment of error and the proceedings appear to have been regularly conducted.
    A motion for anew trial which chargee improper rulings by the district judge, will not be noticed, when the rulings were not objected to, at the proper time and in the proper form.
    An ai>ponl in such a case is almost trifling with the court.
    APPEAL from the Twenty-sixth District Court, Parish of St. John Baptist. Host, J.
    
      Walter If. Royers, Attorney General, for the State, Appellee.
    i\ .Edrinyton■ for Defendant and Appellant.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Bermudez, C. J.

The defendant was prosecuted for murder, tried, convicted and sentenced to death.

He has appealed from the verdict and judgment.

The record is perfectly barren of any motion to quash, bill of excejition, motion in arrest or assignment of error and shows that all the essential forms required by law, in such cases, have been observed.

There is, however, amotion for a new trial; hut it states no matter which this court can review.

If it he true, that the district judge ruled incorrectly on certain points, which it is claimed he has, counsel ought to have objected at the time, in the mode pointed out by law.

In this qourt not even a manuscript brief has been filed in support of the appeal.

Complaining of a verdict and sentence, under such circumstances, is almost trifling with the court, besides inflicting, unnecessarily, heavy costs on the parish. State vs. Adams, 40 Ann. 213.

It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment herein he affirmed.  