(After stating the facts). 1.‘The first exception can not be maintained.

The decision of the Court below upon the question as to who should have the reply and the conclusion of the argument was “ final and not reviewable ” by this Court. By Rule 6, to be found on page 852 of 92 N. C., Rep., this is settled. Brooks v. Brooks, 90 N. C., 142; Cheek v. Watson, 90 N. C., 302; Austin v. Secrest, 91 N. C., 214.

“ It is only when no evidence is introduced by the defendant” that the right of reply and conclusion belongs, of right, to his counsel, by Rule 3, to be found on page 851 of the same volume.

2. The second exception is also untenable. It is not denied, that Dr. Summerell' is an expert, and this case is easily distinguishable from that of the State v. Bowman, 78 N. C., 509. In fact, the question put to Dr. Summerell was in strict compliance with the mode laid down for the examination of experts in State v. Bowman, and the reasoning in that case, and the authorities cited therein, fully sustain the ruling of the Court below. See also Ray v. Ray, 98 N. C., 566; State v. Cole, 94 N. C., 959.

There is no error.

Affirmed.