
    No. 137.
    The State of Louisiana v. William Smith, alias William Stindie.
    In a criminal case only questions of law can be reviewed on appeal. Therefore the decision c f the judge aguo on a question of diligence, raised by the accused in a motion for a new trial, can not be examined by the appellate court.
    In this case a bill of exceptions was taken to the ruling of the judge admitting the testimony of\vitnesse3, not physicians, to prove the cause of the death of the deceased. Held — That the judge did not err in receiving the witnesses. That they were introduced to prove the .actual infliction of the wounds by the accused, and the actual death of deceased. That ■the jury were to determine from the facts given by the witnesses whether deceased ■came to his death by the wounds given by the accused.
    APPEAL from Tenth Judicial District, parish of Caddo. Levissee,
    
    TF. TF. Farmer, District Attorney for the State.
   Taliaferro, J.

The defendant was tried before tlio district court of the parish of Caddo, on an indictment for the murder of Edward l-Ieath, and found guilty. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life in the State Penitentiary, and has appealed.

After conviction, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, supported by affidavit, and setting out the grounds which are substantially the discovery of now evidence. This is a question of diligence, and not an unmixed question of law; the action of the district court, on the motion for a new trial, can not be reviewed on appeal. 11 An. 478; 21 An. 475.

During the trial, defendant, by his counsel, objected to tne introduction of witnesses, not physicians and not experts, to prove the cause of the death of the deceased. The objection was overruled, and a bill of exceptions retained. The witnesses were introduced to prove tbe actual infliction of tbe wounds by tbe accused, and tbe actual death of the deceased. The jury were to determine from the facts received from the witnesses, whether the wojxnds given by the accused caused his death. We think the judge did not err.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment appealed from be affirmed, with costs.  