delivered the opinion of the Court.
Ethel Clawns, on February 12th, 1941, was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City on the first and fourth counts of an indictment, containing fivе counts, for violation of Sections 537 and 543 of Article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland, Flack’s Edition. The first count was for violаtion of Section 537 for unlawfully being on the railroad car, and the fourth count was based on violation of Sectiоn 543 which in general prohibits the buying or selling of railroad tickets or the unused portions thereof, or the soliciting for the buying and selling of said tickets without being the duly authorized agent of such railroad.
The first matter pressed by the appellant in this аppeal is that the appellant, when testifying in her own defense, was asked on cross-examination by the Statе, “How many times have you been arrested and convicted?” Objection was made by appellant to this question and the objection was overruled, but no exception was taken to the court’s ruling. The witness then answered that she hаd never been convicted of any crime. This Court said, in the case of
Burges v. State,
The second matter pressed by the appellant is that appellant, after denying her conviction of any crime, was questioned on cross-examination as to two previous convictions in the District of Columbia on the charge of being an unlicensed second-hand dealer in railroad tickets in violation of a provision of the District of Columbia Code as enacted by thе Act of Congress. She admitted these convictions after further cross-examination. No objections, however, wеre made or exceptions taken to
*646
these questions and answers, but after the appellant had been аsked about other matters, a motion was made by the appellant to strike out the testimony as to these two convictions in the District of Columbia. On the court’s refusal to strike out this evidence, an exception was taken. We quote from an opinion by Judge Urner in the case of
Niemoth v. State, supra,
*647
In the instant case, as no exception was taken to the ruling of the lower court on the first question and as no objections or exceptions were taken to the questions and answers about former cоnvictions, as above set forth, we are prevented from considering the rulings of the trial court on the questions here presented by the appellant. This Court said in the case of
Klecka v. State,
Furthermore, in this case there is but one bill of exception which contains three separate rulings on evidence, one of which has been abandoned by the appellant on appeal, and this Court has repeatedly refused to consider such exсeptions when thus presented.
Weeks v. State,
A motion for a new trial was filed by the appellant and such motion was denied and оverruled as to the first count and a new trial granted as to the fourth count. The penalty provided for conviction under the fourth count is greater than that provided for conviction under the first count of the indictment.
Stet
was entered by the State as to the fourth count and the appellant was sentenced under the first count to five days in jail and twenty-five dollars fine and costs. It is contended by the appellant that the Supreme Bench of Baltimore abused its discrеtion in its action upon the motion for a new trial. The appellant cannot complain as to the action of the court in granting a new trial as to the fourth
*648
count of the indictment as a new trial was asked for in her motion. Thе action of the court below on the motion for new trial should not be disturbed unless the discretion of that court was аbused. In examining the record, this Court does not find that the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City abused its discretion in refusing a new trial on the first count of the indictment.
Archer v. State,
Judgment affirmed, with costs.