
    (99 South. 427)
    No. 26320.
    STATE v. ALEXANDER.
    (Feb. 6, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied by the Whole Court March 3, 1924.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    Criminal law <§=» 1064(1) — Motion for new trial because verdict contrary to law; and evidence presents nothing for review.
    A motion for new trial based solely on the mere and unsupported allegation that the verdiet is contrary to the law and the evidence in a criminal prosecution presents nothing to the appellate court for review.
    Appeal from Third Judicial District Court, Parish of Claiborne; J. E. Reynolds; Judge.
    Bill Alexander was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    T. T. Land, of Shreveport, and O. H. Rhodes, of Emory, Tex., for appellant.
    A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., W. D. Goff, Dist. Atty., of Arcadia (T. S. Walmsley, of New Orleans, A. J. Bordelon, of- Marksville, and W. C. Barnette, of Shreveport, of counsel), for the State.
    By the WHOLE COURT.
   BRUNOT, J.

The defendant was charged with murder. He was indicted, arraigned, tried, and convicted of that crime and was sentenced to hang. From the verdict of the' jury and the judgment and sentence of the court he has appealed.

There- is one bill of exception in the record. This bill was reserved to the overruling by the court of a motion for a new trial. The only averment in the motion for a new trial is that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence.

A motion for a new trial, based solely upon the mere and unsupported allegation that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence, presents nothing to the appellate court for review. State v. Green, 43 La. Ann. 402, 9 South. 42; State v. Hobgood, 46 La. Ann. 855, 15 South. 406; State v. Barnes, 48 La. Ann. 460, 19 South. 251; State v. Jones, 112 La. 980, 36 South. 825; State v. Henderson, 113 La. 232, 36 South. 950; State v. Ferguson, 114 La. 70, 38 South. 23; State v. Labry, 124 La. 748, 50 South. 700; State v. Robertson, 133 La. 806, 63 South. 363.

No assignment of error is made, and no errors appear in the record, which, in view of the gravity of the crime, we have scrutinized with unusual and extreme care. The verdict of the jury and the judgment and sentence of the court appealed from are therefore affirmed.

Rehearing refused by the WHOLE COURT.  