¶1ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
¶2The defendant has filed a petition for rehearing which, with one exception, reargues points raised in his brief on appeal and discussed in the opinion of this court handed down on November 7, 1969. The exception is that in his petition for rehearing, defendant for the' first time argues that the trial court should have granted a mistrial because on cross-examination, state’s witness, Richard Lee, testified that the defendant, whom Lee had not been able to identify in a police lineup, had been pointed out to him as his assailant by the prosecutor or a police officer in the hall, of the courthouse, apparently during a trial recess.
¶3He argues that the identification of the defendant by Lee was therefore the direct result of a suggestive and improper identification procedure in violation *403of United States v. Wade, 388 US 218, 87 S Ct 1926, 18 L Ed 2d 1149 (1967), and Stovall v. Denno, 388 US 293, 87 S Ct 1967, 18 L Ed 2d 1199 (1967). No motion for a mistrial was made on the basis of that occurrence.
“… [S]ince the defendant did not ask the trial court to rule on that issue, there is no ruling for this court to review on appeal. State v. Abel, 241 Or 465, 467, 406 P2d 902 (1965); State v. Avent, 209 Or 181, 183, 302 P2d 549 (1956).” State v. Hollman, 251 Or 416, 446 P2d 117, 120 (1968).
¶4Petition for rehearing denied.