Pulliam v. State

1. “ In order for the exclusion of oral testimony to be considered as a ground for a new trial, it must appear that a pertinent question was ashed, and that the court ruled out the answer; and [where the evidence was elicited upon direct examination] that a statement was made to the court at the time, showing lohat the answer would he; and that such testimony was material, and would have benefited the complaining party.” Griffin v. Henderson, 117 Ga. 382 (2) (43 S. E. 712). Under this ruling, grounds 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the motion for a new trial cannot be considered.

*250Decided May 15, 1923.…