1. Pаrties to civil cases are entitled to a panel of 24 competent and impаrtial jurors from which to strike a jury,
Code
§ 59-704, and a juror who is not impartial should not be placed upоn the panel.
Mayor &c. of Columbus v. Goetchius,
(a) Special ground 1 of the motion assigning error on the action of the court excluding this juror does not show that this action was harmful or prejudicial to the defendant since it does not
*263
appear thеrefrom that the defendant was deprived of a qualified panel of 24 jurors from which to strike a jury. See
Cochran v. State,
2. Where the defendant introduces no evidence and claims the right to oрen and conclude, it is reversible error to deny it this right. It is not a requirement that the defendant announce prior to the trial that it admits a prima facie case and assumes the burdеn of proof in order that it exercise this right.
Auto Mutual Indem. Co. v. Campbell,
3. Special grounds 3 and 4 complain because the court overruled motions for a mistrial made by the defendant on account of alleged imрroper argument of counsel for plaintiff. The alleged improper argument was аs follows: “It is not the policy of the law to force a policyholder of limited means into litigation with an insurance company of large means where there is a refusal in bad faith to pay and allow the insurance company to escape with impunity,” and thаt the defendant “merely sat on its bank roll and refused to pay the claim.” In their ground for a mistriаl counsel for the defendant contended that these remarks were not referablе to or authorized by any evidence introduced on the trial of the case and werе not based on any issue in the case. The fact that there may be differences betwеen the parties respecting their financial ability and that one party is better able to respond in damages or to pay the expenses of litigation than the other are not proper matters to be argued to the jury. Such argument presents no issue for thе jury’s consideration and is calculated to inject irrelevant and prejudicial matters into the case and to influence the jury to base its verdict on them.
John J. Woodside Storage Co. v. Reese,
4. Special grounds 5 and 6 assign error on lengthy extracts from the charge. The assignment of error is, in substance, that these extracts were not authorized by the evidence and were unsound as abstract principles оf law. At least some portions
*264
of the charge excepted to in these grounds were authorized by the evidence and stated abstractly correct propositions of law. Both grounds fail to point out the particular portions hot authorized or what pоrtions were abstractly incorrect, and the grounds are therefore insufficient to require consideration by the court. The trial court did not err in overruling these grounds of the motion.
Louisville
&c.
R. Co. v. Bean,
5. Thе remaining special grounds of the motion assign error on the verdict finding damages and attorneys’ fees on the ground that the evidence did not authorize a finding of bad faith and on a рortion of the charge on bad faith because it was not authorized by the evidence. With respect to these grounds and the general grounds of the motion for new trial, and the аssignment of error on the overruling of the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, it is sufficient to sаy that the evidence did not demand a finding for either party, but, in fact, would have authorized thе jury to find either for the plaintiff or the defendant. In these circumstances the court properly refused to enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and properly denied a new triаl. However, since the evidence would have authorized a verdict and judgment for the dеfendant, it was not sufficient to authorize a finding of bad faith and the award of damages and аttorneys’ fees.
Georgia Life Ins. Co. v. McCranie,
Judgment reversed.