
    12098, 12099.
    Adams, executor v. Harris; and vice versa.
    
    Decided April 13, 1921.
    Complaint; from Washington superior court — Judge Hardeman. December 10, 1920. (Same case, 25 Ga. App. 373.)
    Because of the absence of Mrs. Addie Lee M. Collins, the defendant made a motion for a continuance, and in support of the motion one of his counsel made the following statement: “that Mrs. Collins, the absent witness, was present at the last term of the court, and stated that she would be present at this term of the court; that she is detained at home by illness and prevented from attending the court; that she is a daughter of Mrs. Julia A. Martin, against whose estate the plaintiff seeks a judgment on the note sued upon; that her interest will be affected by the judgment rendered in said case; that, while we represent the executor, he is only a nominal party; Mrs. Collins is really our client and is also a very material witness for the defendant; if she were present, she would testify that she knows that her mother’s mind had become affected just prior to the date it is alleged that the note sued upon was signed, and that she was incapacitated to transact business; she would further testify that the plaintiff, W. M. Harris, who is the grandson of the deceased and who lived with her, had a great influence over the deceased at the time the note sued upon. is alleged to have been made by Mrs. Julia A. Martin; that this testimony is material to the issues involved in the case, and that he, as counsel, could not safely go to trial without the presence of Mrs. Addie Lee M. Collins, and that he expected her to be present to-day, and that he would have her present at the next term of the court, and asked that said case be continued.”
    
      Evans & Evans, for plaintiff in error. Jordan & Harris, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

1. It was not error to overrule the motion for a continuance.

2. Under the facts of the case it was not error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount of the principal, interest, and attorney’s fees sued for.

3. This court not being satisfied that the writ of error was prosecuted for the purpose of delay only, the prayer of the defendant in error for the award of damages is denied.

Judgment affirmed on main hill of exceptions; cross-Mil dismissed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.  