Phillips & Son v. Bagwell Motor Car Co.

Bloodwobth, J. 1. The ground of the motion for new trial alleging error “because the court erred in forcing defendant into trial without the witness I-Ioyt Bagwell” is without merit. It does not appear that the defendant made a motion for a continuance or postponement, or complied with the provisions of § 5715 of the Civil Code (1910). 2. The other questions raised by the motion for a new trial depend for decision upon a consideration óf a brief of- the evidence. While “the insertion of some questions and answers in a brief of evidence, where apparently necessary to present t\ie evidence with lucidity and precision, does not necessarily constitute a breach of the requirement that testimony be presented in narrative form,” a brief of evidence should not include objections to evidence, rulings of the court thereon, and colloquies between court and counsel; and where the purported brief is loaded with such unnecessary, irrelevant and superfluous matter, it will not be considered^ by this court, and no question depending on the evidence will be decided. A brief of evidence should “include, therein only material evidence.” Civil Code (1910), § 6093; Bunn v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 18 Ga. App. 66 (88 S. E. 798); Fulton Lodge v. Roberson, 18 Ga. App. 586 (89 S. E. 1088); Whitaker v. State, 138 Ga. 139 (4a), 145 (75 S. E. 254). Judgment affirmed. Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur. Mortgage foreclosure; from city court of Hall county—Judge Wheeler. October 22, 1917. O. N. Davie, K. D. Kenyon, for plaintiffs in error. Sloan & Sloan, contra.