26 Ga. App. 450 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1921
(a) The statement of the court made while ruling upon the admissibility of this evidence did not amount to an expression or intimation of an opinion as to what had been proved in the case.
6. In the absence of an appropriate request, it is not error to fail to explain to the jury the meaning of “the preponderance of the evidence. ” Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Randolph, 136 Ga. 505 (4) (71 S. E. 887).
7. The charge of the court substantially set out the contentions of the plaintiff in error as contained in its plea, and the assignment that it did not do so is without merit.
8. The charge was not subject to the criticism that it failed to apply the law to the particular facts in the case.
9. Viewing the charge as a whole, it was not objectionable because of failure to charge more fully what constituted a breach of a contract on the part of the defendant in error, there being no request for such instructions.
10. The charge of the court was full and fair, and not subject to any of the criticisms of it made in the motion for a new trial. For no reason assigned was it error to overrule the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.