
    [No. 10,078.]
    PEOPLE v. AH FAT.
    Bill of Exceptions in Ceiminal Case.—On an appeal from an order denying a new trial, in. a criminal case, there must he a bill of exceptions settled by the Judge, after the disposition of the motion for a new trial.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County.
    The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and moved for a new trial. He presented to the Court a bill of exceptions; which was settled and allowed, and thereupon the motion was heard and denied. The defendant then appealed from the judgment, and from the order denying a new trial, relying upon the bill of exceptions, as settled before the hearing of the motion.
    
      S. S. Holl, for Respondents, moved to strike out the bill of exceptions, on the ground that it had not been properly settled.
    
      Jo Hamilton, for Appellant, argued that, as the bill of exceptions contained all the record, and had been settled by the Court, it was sufficient.
   Chief Justice Wallace, speaking for the Court, said:

The Court is of opinion that there should be a bill of exceptions settled by the Judge, after the disposition of the motion for a new trial.

Motion granted.  