Appellant was convicted of the offense of grand larceny.

We see nothing to discuss. The record is regular in all respects. There were no exceptions reserved on the trial — or rulings by which an exception is presumed.

Appellant, after the trial, procured attorneys — 'two good ones — who have filed a brief here.

But their principal — in effect, sole — contention is that, appellant ought'to have a new trial because he had no counsel on his trial below.

*404 He asked for no such counsel, and cannot now complain.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.