George Earl Mercer was charged in two complaints with gambling offenses made illegal by G. L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) §§11-19-5 and 11-19-14. He was tried and found guilty first by a judge in the Tenth Judicial District Court, and then on appeal before a justice and jury in the Superior Court. At the Superior Court trial, he was also found guilty on an indictment charging him with keeping a dwelling for gambling purposes, in violation of §11-19-18. The three cases are here on a bill of exceptions filed well before Rule 4(b) of our rules became effective and changed the procedure for obtaining appellate review of criminal proceedings.

The state -concedes that there is no evidence in this case tending to show that defendant kept a place designed for people to assemble for the purpose of gambling, and hence it agrees with defendant’s argument that -application of the rule in State v. Hindle, 108 R. I. 389, 275 A.2d 915 (1971), will not permit the -conviction on the indictment to stand.

The defendant’s several other arguments merit no consideration because of his failure to comply with §9-24-17 by incorporating in his bill of exceptions a clear and definite statement of the exceptions, if any, upon which those arguments are premised. McGovern v. Lord, 91 R. I. 392, 162 A.2d 799 (1960); James C. Goff Co. v. Lunn, 49 R. I. 455, 458, 143 A. 673, 674 (1928); State v. Kemp, 37 R. I. 572, 94 A. 429 (1915).

The defendant’s exception to the indictment charging a violation of §11-19-18 is sustained, his other exceptions are overruled, and the cases are remitted to the Superior Court for further proceedings.