Duke v. Hogan

Gilbert, J. 1. The use of the word “ plaintiff ” instead of the word “ defendant ” in the charge of the court, where the context plainly showed the use of the word was a mere slip of the tongue, and such as [361] was not calculated to mislead the jury, will not necessitate a new trial. Hoxie v. State, 114 Ga. 19 (6) (39 S. E. 944), and citations; Berry v. Clark, 117 Ga. 964 (2) (44 S. E. 824); Southern Ry. Co. v. Merritt, 120 Ga. 409 (47 S. E. 908); Lothridge v. Varnadore, 140 Ga. 131 (2) (78 S. E. 721); L. & N. R. Co. v. Culpepper, 142 Ga. 275 (2) (82 S. E. 659), and citations; Loe v. Brown, 155 Ga. 24 (116 S. E. 309). No. 3510. March 15, 1923. 2. The verdict is supported by evidence. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices coneur. M. B. Eubanhs, for plaintiffs in error. Harris & Harris, contra.