The case is here on the record proper in response to certiorari which was issued at the instance of appellant to preserve his right of appeal. Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713; Hicks v. Westbrook, 121 N. C., 131, 28 S. E., 188. The only exception is to the “judgment (of forfeiture) as set out in the record” and the failure to sign judgment of restoration as prayed. Smith v. Smith, 223 N. C., 433, 27 S. E. (2d), 137; Cooper v. Cooper, 221 N. C., 124, 19 S. E. (2d), 237; Holding v. Daniel, 217 N. C., 473, 8 S. E. (2d), 249.

The alleged invalidity of the search warrant is of no avail to the appellant on his challenge to the order of forfeiture, since the defendants, Jones and Stanley, who had possession of the liquor, have not appealed from their convictions, and the appellant was acquitted on the criminal charge. S. v. Wallace, 162 N. C., 622, 78 S. E., 1. In addition, there is no exceptive assignment of error addressed to the point.

No error appears on the face of the record as filed in this Court. Edwards v. Perry, 208 N. C., 252, 179 S. E., 892; S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421. Hence the judgment of forfeiture will be upheld. S. v. Hall, 224 N. C., 314, 30 S. E. (2d), 158.

Affirmed.