
    Norille v. The State.
    
      Prosecution for Presenting Pistol.
    
    1. Trial and its incidents; xolten finding upon facts will not be reviexoed on appeal. — Where a criminal case is tried by a court without a jury and there is no agreed statement of facts or any special finding of the facts hy the judge, and no request for such finding, the conclusions of the judge upon the facts stand as a verdict of- the jury and will not be revised on appeal.
    Appeal from the 'Criminal Court of Jefferson.
    Tried before the Hon. Daniel A. Gtieene.
    The appellant in this case was prosecuted and convicted for presenting a pistol at another person. The cause was tried by the judge of the criminal court without a jury, and there ivas no agreed statement of facts, nor was there any special finding of the facts by the court, nor a request for such finding.
    
      J. W. Chamulee, for appellant,
    cited Wharton v. Stale, 73 Ala. 366; Tarver v. State, 13 Ala. 354; Lawson v. State, 30 Ala. 14.
    Chas. O. Brown, Attorney-General, for the State,
    cited Davenport v. State, 112 Ala. 50; Fiebelman v. State, 130 Ala. 122; Wright v. State, 29 So. Rep. 864; Knoyyles v. State, 80 Ala. 9; Bell v. State, 75 Ala. 25.
   McCLELLAN, C. J.-

This case was tried by the judge without a jury. It is sought by thisi appeal only ¡to have his finding and conclusion of guilt on the testimony reviewed. The facts were not agreed upon, nor was there any special finding of them nor request for such finding. On this state of case the conclusion of the judge stands as a verdict of a jury, and cannot be revised by this court. — Bell v. State, 75 Ala. 25; Knowles v. State, 80 Ala. 9; Wright v. State, 29 So. Rep. 864; Fiebelman v. State, 130 Ala. 122.

Affirmed.  