
    Williams vs. The State of Georgia.
    It is error in the court to refuse to allow the jury to be polled, the motion for that purpose being made before they have dispersed, and before the verdict has been recorded.
    Jury. Practice in the Superior Court. Before Judge Mershon. Glynn Superior Court. May Term, 3879.
    To the report contained in the decision it is only necessary to add that one of the grounds of the motion for new trial was because the court refused to allow the jury to be polled, holding the motion for that purpose too late, although made before the verdict was recorded or the jury had dispersed.
    Mabry & Crovatt, for plaintiff in error.
    S. W. Hitch, solicitor-general, for the state.
   Warner, Chief Justice.

The defendant was indicted for the offense of “burglary in the night-time,” and on his trial therefor was found guilty. A motion was made for a new trial on the grounds therein stated, which was overruled by the court, and the defendant excepted.

Upon looking into the record and bill of exceptions, we find that the presiding judge approved the truth of the grounds in the motion for a new trial, and therefore we reverse the judgment on the ground that the court refused to allow the defendant’s counsel to poll the jury. This is notan open question in this court. See 52 Ga., 478.

Let the judgment of the court below be reversed.  