Defendant was convicted of the offense of theft by taking certain money and gasoline lawfully in his possession having a value of over $200 by unlawfully appropriating said property with the intention of depriving the owner. Defendаnt’s motion for new trial was filed, a *237 hearing was immediately held, and the same was denied. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. Defendant’s first four enumerations alleged error in that the trial court failed to grant his motion for directed verdict of acquittal, on four separate grounds, contending, in general, that the alleged misappropriatiоn constituted a civil wrong at most and did not warrant criminal prosecution. While the victim may have a civil remedy аgainst the defendant the complainant’s civil remedy and the state’s right of criminal prosecution are not mutuаlly exclusive. See
Gerdine v. State,
2. Code Ann. § 70-301 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18,30; 1973, pp. 159,167) provides that a motion for new trial may be heard in vacation or term time, and the court may in its discretion hear and determine the motion before the transcript of evidence and proceedings is prepared and filed. The trial court did not err in hearing the motion immediately after it was filed and prior to the preparation оf the transcript and proceedings, the evidence at the trial being fresh in the memory of the court at that рarticular point in time. Further, counsel has cited no law requiring that the motion for new trial be set down for a hearing or that it cannot be summarily heard instanter. There is no merit in this complaint.
3. During opening argument counsel for the state displayed a document to the jury, and on objection the court announced that if state’s counsel сould not connect it up during the course of the trial then he would instruct the jury to disregard it and rule it out. This was state’s Exhibit No. 1 apparently containing dates and figures from January through July of 1981 used as demonstrative evidence. Defendant has not required this document to be forwarded to this court as a part of the transcript. This exhibit was not allowed in evidence to go out with the jury. The court specifically stated that it
*238
was sustaining the objection to the documеnt as an exhibit as it might constitute a continuing witness. The court would allow it to be displayed to the jury for purposes of argument and argument only, but he would not allow it to be admitted into evidence. The defendant has failed to prеsent any authority to support his argument that the display of same both in opening argument and in final argument was errоneous. In failing to present such authority his contention is deemed abandoned. See
Royle v. State,
4. Subsequent to the start of this criminal proceеding a bank obtained a writ of possession against the convenience store where the gasoline or funds wеre allegedly taken. The writ covered all inventory which apparently included some gasoline remaining in thе tanks, the same being the property of the owner-victim who was then under cross-examination. Objection was made by the assistant district attorney to the relevancy of testimony with reference to the writ of possession by the bank. The defendant contended the owner was directly involved in conducting an inventory for the bank and that he рurchased the inventory through the bank, all of which was after the fact as to the taking out of the warrant. Defendаnt contends this could be a motive for the taking out of the warrant. The state’s objection was sustained. However, no abuse of the trial court’s discretion has been shown as the extent of cross-examination may be curtаiled if the inquiry is not relevant or material. See
Gravitt v. State,
5. The court amply charged as to the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof being on the state and the requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasоnable doubt. There is no merit in the complaint that the trial court over-emphasized the verdicts of guilty and guilty of thеft by taking property not exceeding $200 in value and allegedly mentioning ever so slightly a not guilty verdict. There is no merit in this сomplaint.
6. During the course of the trial the proceedings were moved from a mobile home courtroom into the courthouse over the objection of the defendant that the state’s case in chief was prеsented in the “house trailer” in a very close atmosphere whereas the defendant was required to present his evidence in the larger formal courtroom. We find no basis for reversal here as no harmful error has been shown in *239 the removal of the trial from one room to another under the circumstances. There is no merit in this complaint.
Judgment affirmed.