
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SIDNEY BRUCE HOGSED
    No. 6829SC454
    (Filed 15 January 1969)
    Criminal Law § 166— appellant’s brief
    Failure of defendant’s brief to comply with Rule 28 of tbe Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals in that the brief does not contain, properly numbered, the several grounds of exception and assignment of error with reference to the pages of the record, and the authorities relied on, classified under each assignment, subjects the appeal to dismissal. Rule 48 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals.
    Appeal by defendant from Martin, (Harry C.), J., July 1968 Session of Superior Court of TRANSylvania County.
    Defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with the misdemeanor of operating a motor vehicle on the public highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. Upon his plea of not guilty, trial was by jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged.
    From a judgment imposing a one-hundred-dollar fine and requiring the defendant to pay the cost and surrender his driver’s license, the defendant appeals, assigning error.
    
      Attorney General T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin, and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.
    
    
      Hamlin, Potts & Hudson by Jack H. Potts for the defendant.
    
   MORRIS, J.

The brief of the defendant appellant does not comply with the provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals in that it does not contain, properly numbered, the several grounds of exception and assignment of error with reference to the pages of the record, and the authorities relied on, classified under each assignment. Rule 48 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals reads: “If these rules are not complied with, the appeal may be dismissed.” This case is, therefore, subject to dismissal for failure to comply with the rules. The Attorney General has made a motion to dismiss on the grounds of this failure to comply with the rules. State v. Floyd, 241 N.C. 79, 84 S.E. 2d 299; Shepard v. Oil & Fuel Co., 242 N.C. 762, 89 S.E. 2d 464.

However, instead of dismissing it, we have examined the exceptions and assignments of error in the record and find no prejudicial error. The issue was primarily one of fact, and the jury’s verdict was against the defendant.

No error.

MallaRD, C.J., and Campbell, J., concur.  