It has been held that where the law permits an incoming judge to sign a bill of exceptions, he has the power to pass upon a motion for a new trial challenging the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case. People v. Mosley, 226 Mich. 295, 197 N.W. 541; State, ex rel. Cosgrove v. Perkins, 139 Mo. 106, 40 S.W. 650. Our statutes have no provision for the allowance or signing of a bill of exceptions in criminal cases after the death of the trial judge. We have held that the act of 1911, concerning appeals and writs of error (S. L. 1911, c. 6) does not apply to criminal cases.

This is true even in criminal cases. Boyles v. People, 90 Colo. 32, 6 P.2d 7; Clark v. State, 29 Okla. Crim., 243, 232 P. 953; State v. Madry, 93 S.C. 412, 76 S.E. 977; People v. Mosley, 226 Mich. 295, 197 N.W. 541. See, also, State, ex rel. Cosgrove, v. Perkins, Judge, 139 Mo., 106, 40 S.W. 650. Many of the earlier cases which we do not cite hold to the contrary. That a successor judge should pass on the motion for new trial where the transcript of testimony at the original trial is available is logical in the concept of our practice.