Miller v. State
24 Ga. App. 354
Ga. Ct. App.
1919
Check Treatment
Broyles, C. J.

1. In the light of the note of the trial judge, tliex’e is no merit in the 9th special gx-ound of the motion for a new trial.

2. The vei'dict was demanded by the evidence and the statement of the defendant; and therefore, if there were any errors in the charge of the court, they were harmless.

3. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulco and Bloodworth, J.J., concur. Hubert Rawls, Feagin & Hancock, for plaintiff in error. Will Gunn, solicitor, contra.