| Ga. | Aug 17, 1906
1. In Ms application for a continuance the movant failed to show that the same was not made for the purpose of delay; and there was no abuse of the court’s discretion in overruling the motion for continuance.
2. The portions of the charge excepted to were not erroneous for any of the reasons assigned. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment of the court refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.
Judgment affirmed.