Case Name: Lovingood v. Roberts et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1892-06-08
Citations: 89 Ga. 417
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lovingood v. Roberts et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
Lovingood v. Roberts et al.
The writ of error not being-such as is prescribed by statute, but on the contrary, consisting in part of a recital of facts which if true and of sufficient materiality to be brought to this court should have been set out in the bill of exceptions, and embracing also a direction to the clerk to send up the charge of the court—something not . specified in the bill of exceptions,
June 8, 1892.
Practice in Supreme Court.
The bill of exceptions recites that the case came on to be tried on September 8, 1890, that a verdict was rendered for the defendants, and that the plaintiff moved for a new trial, and the motion upon the hearing was-; overruled, which ruling is excepted to and assigned as; error. The plaintiff then proceeds to specify, as material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of, certain parts of the record and certain parts of the evidence; and then follows a recital that the plaintiff comes within thirty days from the overruling of the motion and presents this bill of exceptions, etc. The judge’s certificate (in the form prescribed by the statute, except that it uses the word “ contains” where it should use the word “specifies” in referring to the evidence) is immediately followed by these words:
“ The clerk will also send up as part of the record the entire charge of the court as approved. I further certify that this ease was set for a hearing on- January 2nd, 1891; that the motion, brief of evidence and charge of the court was handed the judge for examination and approval ; that the same was left by the judge on his desk in his office in Marietta ; that said papers could not be found until recently. This delay was not the fault of plaintiff' or his counsel; that the 3rd, 4th and 5th and 6th grounds of the motion was filed within the time limited by the several orders in th.e case and which are a proper part of said motion. December 23, 1891.
G-eo... N.Gober, Judge S. C.
“ By way of note I add that it is not apparent what the purpose of the addenda to the certificate may be. Counsel present it in this way, and I sign as presented.

Opinion:
the Writ of error is dismissed.
Geo. F. Gober, Judge."
W. A. Teasley, P. P. DuPre and O. D. Phillips, for plaintiff.
. Geo. B. Brown and J. E. Mozley, for defendants.