specification error in Kansas

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1957S. 1935, 60-3826, Rule 5; Brown v. Rhodes, 1 Kan. 359 ; Lumber Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190 , 114 Pac. 372 ; Biby v. City of Wichita, 151 Kan. 981, 982, 983 , 101 P. 2d 919 ; 2 West’s Kan.

1957S. 1935, 60-3826, Rule 5; Brown v. Rhodes, 1 Kan. 359 ; Lumber Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190 , 114 Pac. 372 ; Biby v. City of Wichita, 151 Kan. 981, 982, 983 , 101 P. 2d 919 ; 2 West’s Kan.

1959In State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , 263 Pac. 787 , it was held: “Rule followed that claims of trial error not brought to the attention of the district court by motion for new trial, and not brought to the attention of this court by assigning as error denial of the motion for new trial, may not be '■■considered on appeal.” (Syl; 2.) In State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , 55 P. 2d 348 , it was held: “Error in the admission of evidence of debatable competency cannot be 'considered on appeal when the matter complained of was not urged in the ■ court below in a motion for a new trial, and where no error is

1959In State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , 263 Pac. 787 , it was held: “Rule followed that claims of trial error not brought to the attention of the district court by motion for new trial, and not brought to the attention of this court by assigning as error denial of the motion for new trial, may not be '■■considered on appeal.” (Syl; 2.) In State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , 55 P. 2d 348 , it was held: “Error in the admission of evidence of debatable competency cannot be 'considered on appeal when the matter complained of was not urged in the ■ court below in a motion for a new trial, and where no error is

1955Insofar as the judgment is concerned the only error specified is that the trial court erred in rendering judgment “for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.” In In re Estate of Pardun, 176 Kan. 658 , 272 P. 2d 1051 , we held that a specification of error that the trial court erred in entering judgment for the respondents and against the appellants presented nothing for review, citing in support Hamilton v. Binger, 162 Kan. 415 , 176 P. 2d 553 , and cases there cited.

1955Insofar as the judgment is concerned the only error specified is that the trial court erred in rendering judgment “for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.” In In re Estate of Pardun, 176 Kan. 658 , 272 P. 2d 1051 , we held that a specification of error that the trial court erred in entering judgment for the respondents and against the appellants presented nothing for review, citing in support Hamilton v. Binger, 162 Kan. 415 , 176 P. 2d 553 , and cases there cited.

2000When a defendant attempted to raise refusal to cite police officers for contempt as an issue on appeal in State v. Eldridge, 197 Kan. 694, 703 , 421 P.2d 170 (1966), cert. denied 389 U.S. 991 (1967), we held any review of such proceedings was limited by K.S.A. 20-1205 and could not be a specification of error in a criminal appeal.

2000When a defendant attempted to raise refusal to cite police officers for contempt as an issue on appeal in State v. Eldridge, 197 Kan. 694, 703 , 421 P.2d 170 (1966), cert. denied 389 U.S. 991 (1967), we held any review of such proceedings was limited by K.S.A. 20-1205 and could not be a specification of error in a criminal appeal.

2000When a defendant attempted to raise refusal to cite police officers for contempt as an issue on appeal in State v. Eldridge, 197 Kan. 694, 703 , 421 P.2d 170 (1966), cert. denied 389 U.S. 991 (1967), we held any review of such proceedings was limited by K.S.A. 20-1205 and could not be a specification of error in a criminal appeal.

1977While the statement was inadmissible because it was hearsay and violated the confrontation rule (State v. Mims, 220 Kan. 726, 732-33 , 556 P. 2d 387 ; State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451 , 502 P. 2d 626 ; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L.

1977While the statement was inadmissible because it was hearsay and violated the confrontation rule (State v. Mims, 220 Kan. 726, 732-33 , 556 P. 2d 387 ; State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451 , 502 P. 2d 626 ; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L.

1977While the statement was inadmissible because it was hearsay and violated the confrontation rule (State v. Mims, 220 Kan. 726, 732-33 , 556 P. 2d 387 ; State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451 , 502 P. 2d 626 ; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L.

1977While the statement was inadmissible because it was hearsay and violated the confrontation rule (State v. Mims, 220 Kan. 726, 732-33 , 556 P. 2d 387 ; State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451 , 502 P. 2d 626 ; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L.

1977While the statement was inadmissible because it was hearsay and violated the confrontation rule (State v. Mims, 220 Kan. 726, 732-33 , 556 P. 2d 387 ; State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451 , 502 P. 2d 626 ; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L.

1977While the statement was inadmissible because it was hearsay and violated the confrontation rule (State v. Mims, 220 Kan. 726, 732-33 , 556 P. 2d 387 ; State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451 , 502 P. 2d 626 ; Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L.

1967Defendant relies upon Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 , 12 L. ed. 2d 977, 84 S. Ct. 1758 , in support of this specification of error.

1967Defendant relies upon Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 , 12 L. ed. 2d 977, 84 S. Ct. 1758 , in support of this specification of error.

1964The status of a similar specification of error has been determined by this court in State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31 , 367 P. 2d 67 , under conditions and circumstances which, for present purposes, may be said to be almost identical with the one herein involved.

1964The status of a similar specification of error has been determined by this court in State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31 , 367 P. 2d 67 , under conditions and circumstances which, for present purposes, may be said to be almost identical with the one herein involved.

1964S. 1949, 60-3306, and cases written in conformity therewith including State v. King, 191 Kan. 318 , 380 P. 2d 325 , where the appropriate rule was stated: “A notice of appeal of a civil action filed in the district court but which was not served on the adverse party or its attorney of record gives this court no jurisdiction of the appeal." (Syl.) In St.

1964S. 1949, 60-3306, and cases written in conformity therewith including State v. King, 191 Kan. 318 , 380 P. 2d 325 , where the appropriate rule was stated: “A notice of appeal of a civil action filed in the district court but which was not served on the adverse party or its attorney of record gives this court no jurisdiction of the appeal." (Syl.) In St.

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1963(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (P. 320.) For supporting decisions of like import see Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413, 415 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; Miller v. Rath, 173 Kan. 192, 193 , 244 P. 2d 1213 ; Jeffers v. Jeffers, 181 Kan. 515, 517 , 313 P. 2d 233 ; Wilson v. Evans, 185 Kan. 520, 522 , 345 P. 2d 1002 ; Otto v. Swartz, 186 Kan. 689, 692, 693 , 352 P. 2d 12 ; In re Estate of Rosey, 187 Kan. 254, 256 , 356 P. 2d 849 ; Jones v. Kansas City Embalming & Casket Co., 190 Kan. 51 , 372 P. 2d 60 .

1960With respect to the specification of error, this court has consistently and uniformly held that rulings on motions to strike, regardless whether such motions have been sustained or overruled, rest in the sound discretion of the district court and are not appealable under sections 60-3302 and 60-3303, and of a certainty do not result in reversible error, unless such rulings are final, affect a substantial right, or, in effect, determine the action (Nausley v. Nausley, 181 Kan. 543, 545 , 313 P. 2d 302 ; In re Estate of Sims, 182 Kan. 374, 378 , 321 P. 2d 185 , and the many cases therein cited;

1960With respect to the specification of error, this court has consistently and uniformly held that rulings on motions to strike, regardless whether such motions have been sustained or overruled, rest in the sound discretion of the district court and are not appealable under sections 60-3302 and 60-3303, and of a certainty do not result in reversible error, unless such rulings are final, affect a substantial right, or, in effect, determine the action (Nausley v. Nausley, 181 Kan. 543, 545 , 313 P. 2d 302 ; In re Estate of Sims, 182 Kan. 374, 378 , 321 P. 2d 185 , and the many cases therein cited;

1960With respect to the specification of error, this court has consistently and uniformly held that rulings on motions to strike, regardless whether such motions have been sustained or overruled, rest in the sound discretion of the district court and are not appealable under sections 60-3302 and 60-3303, and of a certainty do not result in reversible error, unless such rulings are final, affect a substantial right, or, in effect, determine the action (Nausley v. Nausley, 181 Kan. 543, 545 , 313 P. 2d 302 ; In re Estate of Sims, 182 Kan. 374, 378 , 321 P. 2d 185 , and the many cases therein cited;

1960With respect to the specification of error, this court has consistently and uniformly held that rulings on motions to strike, regardless whether such motions have been sustained or overruled, rest in the sound discretion of the district court and are not appealable under sections 60-3302 and 60-3303, and of a certainty do not result in reversible error, unless such rulings are final, affect a substantial right, or, in effect, determine the action (Nausley v. Nausley, 181 Kan. 543, 545 , 313 P. 2d 302 ; In re Estate of Sims, 182 Kan. 374, 378 , 321 P. 2d 185 , and the many cases therein cited;

1960With respect to the specification of error, this court has consistently and uniformly held that rulings on motions to strike, regardless whether such motions have been sustained or overruled, rest in the sound discretion of the district court and are not appealable under sections 60-3302 and 60-3303, and of a certainty do not result in reversible error, unless such rulings are final, affect a substantial right, or, in effect, determine the action (Nausley v. Nausley, 181 Kan. 543, 545 , 313 P. 2d 302 ; In re Estate of Sims, 182 Kan. 374, 378 , 321 P. 2d 185 , and the many cases therein cited;

1960With respect to the specification of error, this court has consistently and uniformly held that rulings on motions to strike, regardless whether such motions have been sustained or overruled, rest in the sound discretion of the district court and are not appealable under sections 60-3302 and 60-3303, and of a certainty do not result in reversible error, unless such rulings are final, affect a substantial right, or, in effect, determine the action (Nausley v. Nausley, 181 Kan. 543, 545 , 313 P. 2d 302 ; In re Estate of Sims, 182 Kan. 374, 378 , 321 P. 2d 185 , and the many cases therein cited;

1960Under the facts presented, the specification of error is not subject to appellate review (Gaynes v. Wallingford, 185 Kan. 655 , 347 P. 2d 458 , and cases cited therein). *79 The plaintiff next specifies as error the sustaining of the defendants’ separate demurrers.

1960Under the facts presented, the specification of error is not subject to appellate review (Gaynes v. Wallingford, 185 Kan. 655 , 347 P. 2d 458 , and cases cited therein). *79 The plaintiff next specifies as error the sustaining of the defendants’ separate demurrers.

1960(Quick, Receiver v. Purcell, supra; Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .) In the recent case of State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101 , 340 P. 2d 390 , many of our state cases pertaining to rule No. 5 were discussed and we again concluded that in order for the supreme court to review alleged trial errors in a criminal prosecution it is required that the defendant appeal from the order overruling his motion for a new trial, and, in addition thereto, such ruling must be specified as error.

1960(Quick, Receiver v. Purcell, supra; Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .) In the recent case of State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101 , 340 P. 2d 390 , many of our state cases pertaining to rule No. 5 were discussed and we again concluded that in order for the supreme court to review alleged trial errors in a criminal prosecution it is required that the defendant appeal from the order overruling his motion for a new trial, and, in addition thereto, such ruling must be specified as error.

1959In State v. Turner, 183 Kan. 496 , 328 P. 2d 733 , it was held: ' “Matters specified as error, in order to be reviewable, must be within the • purview of those matters contained in the notice of appeal, and, when an ¡•■appellant seeks to have this court review alleged trial errors, he must appeal *103 from the order overruling his motion for a new trial, and, in addition, must specify such ruling as error.” (Syl. 1.) The Turner case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and on March 30, 1959, that court, in a per curiam opinion, dismissed the appeal for • want of a substantia

1959In State v. Turner, 183 Kan. 496 , 328 P. 2d 733 , it was held: ' “Matters specified as error, in order to be reviewable, must be within the • purview of those matters contained in the notice of appeal, and, when an ¡•■appellant seeks to have this court review alleged trial errors, he must appeal *103 from the order overruling his motion for a new trial, and, in addition, must specify such ruling as error.” (Syl. 1.) The Turner case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and on March 30, 1959, that court, in a per curiam opinion, dismissed the appeal for • want of a substantia

1959(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (1. c. p. 320.) See, also, North American Finance Corporation v. Circle-B, Inc., 180 Kan. 34 , 299 P. 2d 576 ; Rice v. Hovey, 180 Kan. 38 , 299 P. 2d 45 .

1959(Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 .)” (1. c. p. 320.) See, also, North American Finance Corporation v. Circle-B, Inc., 180 Kan. 34 , 299 P. 2d 576 ; Rice v. Hovey, 180 Kan. 38 , 299 P. 2d 45 .

1959In State v. Turner, 183 Kan. 496 , 328 P. 2d 733 , it was held: ' “Matters specified as error, in order to be reviewable, must be within the • purview of those matters contained in the notice of appeal, and, when an ¡•■appellant seeks to have this court review alleged trial errors, he must appeal *103 from the order overruling his motion for a new trial, and, in addition, must specify such ruling as error.” (Syl. 1.) The Turner case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and on March 30, 1959, that court, in a per curiam opinion, dismissed the appeal for • want of a substantia

1959In State v. Turner, 183 Kan. 496 , 328 P. 2d 733 , it was held: ' “Matters specified as error, in order to be reviewable, must be within the • purview of those matters contained in the notice of appeal, and, when an ¡•■appellant seeks to have this court review alleged trial errors, he must appeal *103 from the order overruling his motion for a new trial, and, in addition, must specify such ruling as error.” (Syl. 1.) The Turner case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and on March 30, 1959, that court, in a per curiam opinion, dismissed the appeal for • want of a substantia

1959In State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , 263 Pac. 787 , it was held: “Rule followed that claims of trial error not brought to the attention of the district court by motion for new trial, and not brought to the attention of this court by assigning as error denial of the motion for new trial, may not be '■■considered on appeal.” (Syl; 2.) In State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , 55 P. 2d 348 , it was held: “Error in the admission of evidence of debatable competency cannot be 'considered on appeal when the matter complained of was not urged in the ■ court below in a motion for a new trial, and where no error is

1959In State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , 263 Pac. 787 , it was held: “Rule followed that claims of trial error not brought to the attention of the district court by motion for new trial, and not brought to the attention of this court by assigning as error denial of the motion for new trial, may not be '■■considered on appeal.” (Syl; 2.) In State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , 55 P. 2d 348 , it was held: “Error in the admission of evidence of debatable competency cannot be 'considered on appeal when the matter complained of was not urged in the ■ court below in a motion for a new trial, and where no error is

1959In State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , 263 Pac. 787 , it was held: “Rule followed that claims of trial error not brought to the attention of the district court by motion for new trial, and not brought to the attention of this court by assigning as error denial of the motion for new trial, may not be '■■considered on appeal.” (Syl; 2.) In State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , 55 P. 2d 348 , it was held: “Error in the admission of evidence of debatable competency cannot be 'considered on appeal when the matter complained of was not urged in the ■ court below in a motion for a new trial, and where no error is

1959In State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , 263 Pac. 787 , it was held: “Rule followed that claims of trial error not brought to the attention of the district court by motion for new trial, and not brought to the attention of this court by assigning as error denial of the motion for new trial, may not be '■■considered on appeal.” (Syl; 2.) In State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , 55 P. 2d 348 , it was held: “Error in the admission of evidence of debatable competency cannot be 'considered on appeal when the matter complained of was not urged in the ■ court below in a motion for a new trial, and where no error is

1959In State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , 263 Pac. 787 , it was held: “Rule followed that claims of trial error not brought to the attention of the district court by motion for new trial, and not brought to the attention of this court by assigning as error denial of the motion for new trial, may not be '■■considered on appeal.” (Syl; 2.) In State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , 55 P. 2d 348 , it was held: “Error in the admission of evidence of debatable competency cannot be 'considered on appeal when the matter complained of was not urged in the ■ court below in a motion for a new trial, and where no error is

1959In State v. Shehi, 125 Kan. 110 , 263 Pac. 787 , it was held: “Rule followed that claims of trial error not brought to the attention of the district court by motion for new trial, and not brought to the attention of this court by assigning as error denial of the motion for new trial, may not be '■■considered on appeal.” (Syl; 2.) In State v. Pore, 143 Kan. 344 , 55 P. 2d 348 , it was held: “Error in the admission of evidence of debatable competency cannot be 'considered on appeal when the matter complained of was not urged in the ■ court below in a motion for a new trial, and where no error is