— An аutomobile operated by defendant in Logan, Iowa, collided with a truck. A deputy sheriff and a highway patrolman promptly took defendant into custody and placed him in jail. Shortly thereafter they conducted him to the office of Dr. Ilook who repaired and sutured a bad tear in defendant’s mouth and lower lip and took a sample of his blоod. The officers delivered this to Dr. Weir for analysis of its alcoholic content. Thereafter defendant was indicted for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and with having been convicted theretofore оf a like charge in the municipal court of Council Bluffs. Section 321.281, Code of 1946. He was convicted and has appealed. Various lay witnesses expressed conflicting opinions whether defendant was intoxicated and his cоunsel concede this was a question for the jury.
I. Defendant contends there was no competent evidence of his prior conviction in the municipal court of Council Bluffs for that it was not shown in the Record Book. Rule 227, Rules of Civil Prоcedure, recites: “All judgments and orders must be entered on the record of the court * * Code section 606.7, subsectiоn 1, provides the clerk of the district court shall keep a book which may be known as the “record book”, aiyl certain other books and dockets. Section 602.13 provides municipal court records shall be kept in substantially the same form and manner. In this case the judgment, in complete and proper form, was spread upon a pаge of a book kept by the clerk of said court and denominated “Appearance Docket and Fee Book, No. C27.”
*594 The evidence shows this- was the book in which the clerk recorded judgments in criminal cases. In the language of the clerk, “This is our criminal, record that we keep. We 'haven’t any other record- of criminal casеs.” The judgments entered therein by the clerk were based Upon memoranda made by the judge upon the court calendar. This so-called Appearance Docket and Fee Book, kept by the clerk, was thereaftеr signed by the judge as the record. See section 604.38.
Defendant relies upon such cases as State v. Wieland,
The so-called “Appearance Docket and Fee Book” in which this judgment was recorded' was in fact Avhat the statute states “may be known as the ‘record book’.” It was the “record book” fоr judgments in criminal cases only and it was also the Appearance Docket and Fee Book for such cases. However, this did’ not affect the validity of the judgment. In Carr v. Bosworth,
II. Defendant contends the court erred in receiving and refusing to strike thе evidence of Dr. Hook concerning the taking *595 of the blood sample. One complaint is that defendant was then unconscious. There was considerable evidence he was conscious and made no objection. Thе court’ submitted to. -the jury the question whether defendant was* conscious and voluntarily permitted the taking of the blood sаmple. No exception was taken to this procedure and we need not determine whether this question was fоr the court or the jury or whether it was necessai-y that the sample was voluntarily given. It is sufficient that the instruction was not less favorable to defendant than he-¡was entitled to receive. ¡
Dr. Hook testified without objection that he repaired defendant’s mouth and took-the blood sample and that defendant was under the influence of liquor. On rebuttal hе testified he made, a charge to defendant which the latter paid. Stating they had not known this defendant’s counsel T'átеr moved to strike Dr. Hook’s testimony as privileged under section 622.10. The trial court denied -the motion, pointing out that defеndant knew it and stating objection should have been made at the time the testimony was offered.
No error appears here. The trial court could properly find the failure to object was" a waiver ■ of the privilege,' if аny. Hepker v. Schmickle,
III. Dr. Weir testified his test of the blood sample showed an alcoholic content of 170 mg. per 100 cc and that 150 or more indicates intoxication. Although the error' assigned at this point is that the witness was incompetent, the r.eal complaint appears to be directed to the accuracy of Heise’s .Test ;which was employed by Dr. Weir. That test is well established and recognized and defendant’s contention that it is unreliable is without support in the record. See' 24 Iowa L. Kev. 211'. — Affirmed: