*1 II1 indulge pre- hand the County, must on the other DeKalb but sumption It does judge that the acted in accordance with them. trial calen- appear placed regular jury that the case was on the dar; even if the motion to dismiss had been heard first it does appear not an- postponed that the trial have been to would day. other of intent only Since the notice a declaration was by plaintiff’s bring hearing, counsel motion on for and to the in any since event counsel had no control over when thereafter the case trial, rely would be set for the defendants could not on this notice alone as that be tried assurance the case would not on that date. The of defendants’ to contact counsel the efforts judge trial in the interest of a and postponement, the fact that he believed represent spe- these efforts to been successful, have cial circumstances which addressed themselves to the court’s discretion. Such discretion will not be controlled it unless has been manifestly abused. (67 v. Hall, Williams Ga. 208 430 237). SE2d judge The himself apparently was not informed either that counsel for the defendants ill or was that he was expected to appear in another court. Since no motion for con- tinuance was made on either of these grounds, he committed no error in proceeding with the trial of the case. all Under these circumstances judgment the denying motion the to set aside must be Jordan, P. J., Pannell, concurs. J., concurs in the
Affirmed. judgment. v.
43673. DANIELS THE STATE. Judge. The defendant was convicted of offense the Pannell, manufacturing of alcoholic liquors without a license and sentenced thereon. He filed a motion for new trial contain- ing general grounds the and several special grounds which appeal was overruled. entered his He to this court from the judgment enumerating on verdict, the as error the identical complained of in his motion for matters new trial. He did overruling not as enumerate error the of his motion for new trial. Held:
112 Crowley State, v. App. con- 7, in Ga. the decision 118
Under Supreme of in of the Court this State struing decision the (161 281), the Willis, 263, (4) SE2d Hill v. 224 268 Ga. upon judg- appellant appeal base his the of the failure to *2 judg- overruling for trial results in that ment his motion new any as to controlling the case and being ment the law of the any contained in of as to matter enumeration error Crowley State, supra, v. is there motion trial. for new In overruling erred in an of court enumeration error that “the however, general grounds”; on the his motion for new trial Willis, ruling in Hill v. was affirmed under the the case affirm supra. we must here. reason, the For same not construction Speaking myself agree for do with alone, the I Willis, in Hill v. placed upon this by court Headnote 4 a new supra, after trial motion for which recites: “Where by judgment trial filed and trial court is overruled such the questions raised as the law of the that the case establishes by such motion for trial unless such new are without merit appeal.” Construing error judgment upon is enumerated as headnote, my interpre- in opinion the connection with the that the Hill v. only requires an enumera- Willis tation case is upon judgment overruling tion for of error the the motion appeal judgment upon new trial from the on verdict and the appeal additionally require does not that the itself be from Willis, Hill v. construing in so judgment. However, such changed my expressed as in my not views in I have dissent Co., Allen Rome (152 App. 717, v. 114 Ga. SE2d 721 Kraft 618).
Judgment J., Jordan, Deen, J., specially. P. and concur affirmed. 21, 1968 5, 1968 Submitted June June Decided
Rehearing 28,1968 denied June Morris, Claude N. appellant. for Myers, General, Frank J. Solicitor appellee. for Presiding Judge, concurring specially. amI not in Jordan, Hill Willis agreement portion that of v. with upon relied in and opinion, judgment solely the concur in the for reason the this by ruling. Judge that court is bound such joins Deen in this special concurrence.