
    (94 South. 785)
    (6 Div. 109.)
    SCOTT v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    Dec. 19, 1922.)
    Criminal law <&wkey;!090(14, 16) — In absence of biii of exceptions, overruling motion for new trial and refusing charges cannot be reviewed.
    In the absence of a bill of exceptions, the action of the trial court in overruling motion for new trial and refusing written charges cannot be reviewed.
    «g^jFor other eases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge.
    George Scott was convicted of second degree murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
    Denson & Ivey, of Birmingham, for appellant.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   BRICKEN, P. J.

This defendant was charged by indictment with the offense of murder in the first degree. Was duly arraigned upon said indictment, pleaded not guilty, and was convicted by the jury of murder in the second degree, his punishment being fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for 15 years.

Judgment was pronounced accordingly from which this appeal is taken.

No bill of exceptions is contained in the transcript. This appeal therefore is upon the record proper. As the record appears free from all error, the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.

In the absence of a bill of exceptions, we are unable to. review the action pf the court in overruling defendant’s motion for a new trial (Stover v. State, 204 Ala. 311, 85 South. 393); and for the same reason we are not in a position to pass upon the several written charges refused.

Affirmed.  