
    3371.
    Hammond v. Jacques.
    Decided January 15, 1912.
    Bail-trover; from city court of Bainbridge — Judge Harrell.
    March 21, 1911.
    
      R. G. Eartsjield, Will E. Krause, for plaintiff. ’
    
      Russell, Fleming & Ouster, for defendant.
   Russell, J.

It not appearing to the satisfaction of the court that the opposite party .was served with notice of the depositions admitted in evidence, and it subsequently appearing, upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial, that the attorney who was notified did not in fact represent the defendant at the time that the notice of the taking of the depositions was given to him, it was not error to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.  