delivered the opinion of the court.
*270 The defendant, Earl Harlow, was indicted for the robbery of Arthur Smith, tried by a jury, found guilty and sentenced to nine years in the penitentiary.
The evidence for the Commonwealth showed that about 9:45 p. m. on May 24, 1952, Arthur Smith, the prosecuting witness, was walking down a street in Bristol, Virginia, on his way home. He testified that when he arrived at the corner of Goodson and State streets two men grabbed him and by force took his watch and a small sum of money, and disappeared in the darkness. Smith then ran to a nearby service station and called the city police. When the officers arrived Smith accompanied them to the police station where he made a report of the robbery. At the trial Smith identified the defendant as one of the two robbers.
John Carty, owner of the service station, testified that about 10:00 p. m. one night in May of 1952, Smith came to his place of business, frightened and out of breath, and called the police to report a robbery.
Captain Grover Fleenor of the Bristol, Virginia, police force testified that Smith came to the jail around 11:00 p. m. on May 24, 1952, and reported that he had been robbed of a watch on the comer of State and Goodson streets.
A Waltham pocket watch with a dent in the case was admitted in evidence and identified by Smith and by one O’Neal as the watch which O’Neal had traded to Smith in May of 1952.
Theodore Crumley, a Bristol taxicab driver, identified the watch as one he had received from the defendant in payment of a cab fare.
Within sixty days after final judgment defendant filed with the clerk his notice of appeal and assignments of error as follows: “1. Because the trial court erred in giving to the jury in writing, improper instructions in the instance of and on motion of the Commonwealth. 2. The trial court erred in refusing to give to the jury proper instructions offered and requested by the Defendant, in writing, over the objections and exceptions of the Defendant.”
*271 At the outset, we are confronted with a motion by the Commonwealth to dismiss the writ of error on the ground that defendant’s assignments of error failed to comply with the requirements of our Rule 5:1, § 4 1 and of Code, § 19-257 2 .
■ Prior to February 1, 1950, when the new Rules of Court became effective, appellate procedure required that the
petition
for an appeal, writ of error or supersedeas assign errors. The Rules have superseded this procedural requirement. Now, after perfecting the record in the trial court, the initial step essential to mature an appeal is to give, “prior to the expiration of sixty days after final judgment * *
*
notice of appeal and assignments of error” as required by Rule 5:1, § 4. In
Skeens
v.
Commonwealth,
The purpose of assignments of error is to point out the errors with reasonable certainty in order to direct this court and opposing counsel to the points on which appellant intends to ask a reversal of the judgment, and to limit discussion to these points. Without such assignments, appellee would be unable to prepare an effective brief in opposition to the granting of an appeal, to determine the material por
*272
tions of the record to designate for printing, to assure himself of the correctness of the record while it is in the clerk’s office, or to file, in civil cases, assignments of cross-error.
Skeens case, supra; Avery
v.
County School Board,
This court has repeatedly dealt with the question here presented by the motion to dismiss.
In the leading case of
Orr
v.
Bennington,
In
Norfolk & W. R. Co.
v.
Perrow,
In
Lamb
v.
Commonwealth,
In
Loughran v..Kincheloe,
In the instant case the supposed assignments, which are set forth above in their entirety, do not point out the errors relied on nor do they identify the instructions which allegedly were erroneously given and refused. In this sitúa
*273
tion the assignments of error are insufficient.
James
v.
Com
monwealth,,
In addition to this failure of the defendant to comply with Rule 5:1, § 4, he has also failed to preserve properly his objections to the giving and refusing of instructions as required by Rule 1:8 3 . The only objection to the rulings of the trial court as shown by the record is stated thus: “Defendant objected and excepted to the action in giving instruction No. 2 offered by the Commonwealth, and to the refusal to give instruction F offered by defendant.”
Rule 1:8" requires that the trial judge be informed of the precise points of objection in the minds of counsel so that he may rule intelligently, thereby avoiding delay and the expense incident to appeals, reversals and new trials upon grounds of objection which might have been obviated or corrected in the trial court. Therefore this Rule must be adhered to unless the exceptions therein stated apply.
Ross
v.
Schneider,
*274
In
Smith
v.
Commonwealth,
In
Pauley
v.
Commonwealth,
In
Gray
v.
Commonwealth,
This court can consider only such errors as are properly saved in the record and presented to us by sufficient assignments of error. Defendant has not complied with these requirements. However, it may not be amiss to say that we have carefully considered the twelve instructions granted by the trial court (7 for the defendant and 5 for the Commonwealth) and the one refused, and are of the opinion that upon the whole record the rights of the defendant have not been prejudiced.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Notes
Rule 5:1, § 4 provides: “No appeal shall be allowed unless, prior to the expiration of sixty days after final judgment, counsel files with the clerk notice of appeal and assignments of error. Within fourteen days thereafter counsel for appellee shall file with the clerk his assignment of cross-error, if any. Only errors so assigned will be noticed by this court.”
§ 19-257, Criminal Procedure, Code of 1950 provides in part as follows: “Any party for whom a writ of error lies may apply therefor on petition, which shall assign errors.” This is the identical language used in § 4933, Code of 1919 and 5 4054, Code of 1887. § 8-474, Civil Remedies and Procedure, Code of 1950, also applies to the assigning of errors in petitions and is identical with the language used in § 6346, Code of 1919 and § 3464, Code of 1887.
Rule 1:8 (formerly Rule 22) provides in part as follows: “In civil and criminal cases, all objections to writs of every kind, pleadings, instructions, notices, the admissibility of evidence, or other matters requiring a ruling or judgment of the trial court, shall state with reasonable certainty the ground of objection, and, unless it appears from the record to have been so stated, such objections will not be considered by this court except for good cause shown, or to enable this court to attain the ends of justice.”