On Rehearing
TYSON, Judge.Appellant urges us to consider certain portions of the oral charge of the trial court (R. pp. 51-52), wherein the trial court charged the jury on the definition of larceny, and the inferences which may be drawn from the evidence in the case, contending that such was erroneous under the evidence. We do not consider this as being erroneous under the evidence set forth in our opinion on original deliverance, and moreover, as therein noted, “the transcript shows a full oral charge to which no exception was taken.”
Where, as here, appellant’s counsel did not make an exception to the oral charge, but, to the contrary, replied, “Satisfied,” and did not ask for any clarifying instructions, nothing is presented for review. Cox v. State, 280 Ala. 318, 193 So.2d 759; Allison v. State, 281 Ala. 193, 200 So.2d 653; Massey v. State, 49 Ala.App. 341, 272 So.2d 267, cert. denied, 289 Ala. 747, 272 So.2d 270, and authorities therein cited.
Appellant further argues that under Article 6, Section 170, Constitution of Alabama 1901, and Title 15, Section 229, Code of Alabama 1940, the indictment must conclude “against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama,” as to each count in the indictment. Where, as here, the indictment itself concludes “against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama,” such lan*58guage need not appear in each count thereof. Pynes v. State, 207 Ala. 395, 92 So. 663, and authorities therein cited. Volume 12, Alabama Digest, Indictment and Information, ®=’32(2).
Opinion extended, application overruled.
All Judges concur.