Hоuston Fertilizer and Grain Co., Inc. (Houston Fertilizer) brought suit against Oscar Belvin (Belvin) and his wife, Mаry J. Belvin, on a promissory note and upon the theory of open account for monies due for the sale of fertilizer. The jury returned a verdict for Houston Fertilizer on the theory of open account against Oscar Belvin only. Bеlvin appeals the verdict, and Houston Fertilizer cross-appeals.
1. The trial court did not err in failing to direct a verdict for Belvin on the issue of interest due on the open account. Belvin contends that since Houston Fertilizer first sоught an interest rate on the promissory note in excess of that allowed by OCGA § 7-4-2 (Code Ann. § 57-101), it forfeited any right to interest on the open account. We do not agree. OCGA § 7-4-10(a) (Code Ann. § 57-112) requires forfeiture of interest charged in violation of the provisions of OCGA § 7-4-2 (Code Ann. § 57-101), which set a maximum rate of interest applicablе in this case of 10-1/2% (see revision in Ga. L. 1983, p. 1146), except as otherwise provided by law. OCGA § 7-4-16 (Code Ann. § 57-111) provides for a maximum interest rate of 1-1/2% per month on commercial accounts. Before trial, Houston Fertilizer *101 amended its complаint. The first count sought recovery on the promissory note, exclusive of any interest. The second count sought recovery on the theory of commerсial account, and gave notice that Houston Fertilizer would seek the stаtutorily permitted 1-1/2% rate of interest. Thus, Houston Fertilizer did not seek any interest greаter than that allowed by law and complied with the statutory requirements to have the issue of interest on the commercial account put before the jury.
2. During trial, Houston Fertilizer impeached Oscar Belvin by means of Belvin’s prior criminal conviction. Belvin argues that the trial court erred in denying him the opportunity to explain the circumstances of the prior criminal conviction. Courts in other jurisdictions have split widely over whether a witness impeached by proоf of a prior criminal conviction should be allowed to explain the circumstances surrounding the conviction. See Annot.,
3. In its cross-appeal, Houston Fertilizer contends the court below erred in not rеading to the jury the statute under which the conviction of Belvin was obtained. We disagree. It is the fact of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude which is imрeaching, not the statute violated or the manner in which it was violated. The conviction itself stated the general nature of the offense and the punishment given. The statute violated is thus irrelevant to the issue of impeachment in this situation.
4. We have examined the charge on impeachment and find it to *102 be a fair statement of the law;'likewise, the charge on agency is also correct. Therefore, we find no merit to Houston Fertilizer’s enumerations dealing with the charge.
Judgment affirmed.