
    The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Davis, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,072.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Criminal law, § 505
      
      —when not presumed that court did not order entry of plea of not guilty. In a prosecution charging defendant with attempt to commit larceny, where the record shows that defendant refused to be arraigned, but the record appears on its face not to be a complete record, the court will not presume that on defendant’s refusal to be arraigned the court did not order the entry of a plea of not guilty or that such plea was not in fact entered.
    2. Criminal law, § 497
      
      —when every presumption in favor of judgment upon review. Where the record on review in a criminal case is on its face fragmentary and incomplete, the judgment reviewed will he supported by every reasonable intendment and presumption.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed February 1, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Prosecution by the People of the State of Illinois against Harry Davis, defendant, in the Municipal Court of Chicago, charging defendant with an attempt to commit larceny. To reverse a judgment of conviction with sentence of confinement for six months in the House of Correction, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
    Claude F. Smith and Otto Wadewitz, for plaintiff in error.
    Maclay Hoyne, for defendant in error; Edward E. Wilson, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Criminal law, § 444 —when HU of exceptions need not contain plea of not guilty. On review of a judgment pf conviction in a criminal case, it is immaterial that the bill of exceptions does not show that a plea of not guilty was entered by or for defendant, since the place where such plea should appear is the common-law record and not the bill of exceptions.

4. Criminal law, § 444 —what is office of bill of exceptions. The use of a bill of exceptions in a criminal case is not to embrace in it matters of record, but to make a part of the record matters which otherwise would not be such.  