Case Name: TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO, Appellee, v. CHAVEZ Y. CHAVEZ, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of New Mexico
Jurisdiction: New Mexico
Decision Date: 1897-10-02
Citations: 9 N.M. 282
Docket Number: No. 737
Parties: TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO, Appellee, v. CHAVEZ Y. CHAVEZ, Appellant.
Judges: Collier, Hamilton and Langhlin, JJ., concur.
Reporter: New Mexico Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 282–283

Head Matter:
[No. 737.
October 2, 1897.]
TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO, Appellee, v. CHAVEZ Y. CHAVEZ, Appellant.
Criminal Law — Practice, Appellate — Errors Assigned, not Apparent on Record . —Where there is no motion for new trial in the bill of exceptions, errors assigned, relating to things done on the trial, are not reviewable on appeal. Padilla v. Territory, 8 N. M. 562.
Appeal, from a judgment of the Fourth Judicial District Court, San Miguel County, convicting defendant of murder in the first degree.
Affirmed.
Veedeb & Veedeb for appellant.
Albert B. Fall, solicitor general, and W. H. Pope, assistant, for the territory.
Errors complained of and not presented to tile court be^ low, by motion for new trial, will not be considered by the appellate court. Padilla v. Territory, 8 N. M. 562, and cases cited.

Opinion:
BANTZ, J.
This cause was before this court on former appeal at last term, and was then reversed and remanded. 45 Pac. 1107. Upon a new trial the defendant was again convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to death, and the cause is again brought here on appeal.
Fifty-six errors are assigned by defendant relating to things done during the progress of the trial. We can not, however, pass upon these alleged errors, as there is no motion for a new trial in the bill of exceptions. It is a fundamental rule that such errors must be brought to the attention of the court below by a motion for a new trial, an exception must be saved to the overruling of that motion, and the motion must be made matter of record by a bill of exceptions. Padilla v. Territory, 45 Pac. (N. M.) 1120. There is no error in the record proper. For these reasons the judgment must be affirmed.-
Collier, Hamilton and Langhlin, JJ., concur.