
    Battle v. The State
    
      Petit Larceny.
    
    (Decided June 27, 1907.
    45 So. Rep. 67.)
    (Rehearing denied Dec. 19, 1907.)
    
      Criminal Law; Appeal; Bill of Exceptions. — The judgment entry recites “defendant has sixty days in which to take an appeal.” The bill of exceptions was not signed until after the adjournment of the court at which the cause was tried. Held, the recitaal in the judgment entry was not an extension of time for signing the bill of exceptions.
    Appeal from Barbour Circuit Court.
    Heard before Hon. A. A. Evans.
    Hiram Battle was convicted of petit larceny and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    C. S. McDowdell, Jr., for appellant.
    Alexander M. Garber, Attorney General, for the State.
   ANDERSON, J.

— What purports to be a bill of exceptions in this, case was signed after the adjournment of court, and the record proper fails to show that any order was made for the signing of the bill in vacation. The judgment entry recites: “Defendant has 60 days in which to take an appeal.” This was in no sense an extension of time for signing the bill of exceptions.

As there is no bill of exceptions in this case, and no error appearing upon' the record proper, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Tyson, C. J., and Dowdell and McClellan, JJ., concur.  