26 Ga. App. 190 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1921
1. Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a ground of a motion for a new trial will not be considered unless it is complete and understandable within itself.
(a) A ground based upon the exclusion of material evidence is too incomplete to be considered unless it not only shows on what ground the evidence was excluded but wherein the court erred in excluding it. Furthermore, where the materiality of the evidence excluded cannot be ascertained without an examination of other parts of the record, such a ground is too indefinite to raise any question for the consideration of this court. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Jaques & Tinsley Co., 23 Ga. App. 396 (2) (98 S. E. 357) ; Corona v. DeLaval Separator Co., 24 Ga. App. 683 (1) (102 S. E. 44) ; Summerlin v. State, 25 Ga. App. 568 (16) (103 S. E. 832). Under the above rulings, neither the 1st nor the 2d ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial in the instant case can be considered.
2. The evidence (as contained in the record) not demanding the verdict returned, the court erred in withdrawing the case from the jury and in directing them to return a verdict for the plaintiff.
Judgment reversed.