¶1In the district court of Dawes county plaintiff in error was convicted of carnally knowing and abusing, with her consent, a female child of the age of thirteen years. It is first insisted in his *661behalf that while the information before the examining magistrate charged the same offense as that charged in the district court, the evidence tended to show that there had been committed a rape by the use of violence. As there is no bill of exceptions, this statement of counsel cannot be verified, and hence must be disregarded.
¶2It is said by counsel in the brief submitted in behalf of the plaintiff in error that there were irregularities in the charging, in the absence of said counsel, a jury which had failed to agree upon a verdict. There is found in the record no evidence of this alleged fact. It cannot be assumed to exist and the argument based thereon must be disregarded. So also of the claim that a nunc pro tunc order was improperly made, and' that the defendant was sentenced in vacation. The judgment of the district court is
¶3Affirmed.