The plaintiff in ¡error states in its brief that the only specification of error which it desires to present is “that the trial court- erred in instructing the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.’’ '

A-u examination of the record disch sos that a motion for a new (rial was filed in this .case, but the alleged error in instructing a verdict for the defendant was not presented in the, motion for a new trial. Tins court has repeatedly held that it will not review a decision of .the trial court in directing a verdict un’ess the same is presented to the trial court by a motion for. new trial. Brown & Bridgeman v. Western Casket Company, 3 Okla. 144, 120 Pac. 1001; Board of Com’rs. of Beaver County v. Langston et al., 41 Okla. 715, 139 Pac. 956; Ardmore Oil & Milling Co. v. Doggett Grain Co., 32 Okla. 280, 122 Pac. 241; Stump v. Porter et al., 31 Okla. 157, 120 Pac. 639.

The action of the trial -court in directing a verdict not having been presented in the motion for new trial, this court will not review the alleged error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.