Allen v. StateAllen v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Bloodworth
1. “ No question as to the sufficiency of the approval of grounds оf a motion for new trial, or of thе approval of the brief of evidence, or of the filing therеof, can be entertained by the Court of Appeals, where thе judge has finally passed upon thе merits of the motion for new trial, unlеss the question was first raised and insisted оn’before the trial judge. Acts 1911, p. 149; Collins v. State, 12 Ga. App. 635 (77 S. E. 1079). See also Nobles v. State, 14 Ga. App. 480 (81 S. E. 370.)” Chicago & Northwestern Ry. v. Elliott, 16 Ga. App. 388 (85 S. E. 615); Mooty v. Butler, 25 Ga. App. 121 (1) (102 S. E. 842). Under these rulings, and because of the express provision of the law, the bill of exceptions will not bе dismissed.
2. (a) “A special ground of a mоtion for a new trial must be complete within itself, and this court will not consider a ground which complains of the admitting of specified evidеnce the materiality of which cannot be determined without an еxamination of the brief of evidеnce or of some other рart of the record.” Mayor & Council of Gainesville v. White, 27 Ga. App. 16 (107 S. E. 571); Veal v. State, 27 Ga. App. 300 (3) (108 S. E. 243); Cœsar v. State, 22 Ga. App. 796 (1) (97 S. E. 255).
(5) “ Refusal to permit a witness to testify as to а certain matter is not cause for a new trial where it is not shown whаt he would have testified or was expected to testify as to the matter if he had been allowed to do so, nor unless it appеars that the party complаining of such refusal offered the tеstimony or asked that it be admitted, nоr unless the court was informed of what it was proposed to prоve by the witness. It should appeаr that such testimony was material and would have benefited the complaining party.” Terry Shipbuilding Corp. v. Gregory, 26 Ga. App. 450 (3), 454 (3) (106 S. E. 803); Smith v. State, 119 Ga. *214113 (1) (46 S. E. 797). Under the rulings in the forеgoing cases the special grounds of the motion for a new trial are too indefinite and incоmplete to raise any question for determination by this court.
3. Therе is some evidence to supрort the finding of the jury; the verdict has bеen approved by the judge who tried the case, and the judgment is
Affirmed.
Broyles, O. J., amd Luke, J., concwr.