
    944.
    Wrigitt v. The State.
   Hill, C. J.

1. None of the assignments of error made in the motion for a new trial can be intelligently considered or determined without reference to the evidence; and there is no brief of the evidence as required by the statute and the repeated decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court. Hirsch v. Dozier Lumber Co. 2 Ga. App. 520 (58 S. E. 786), and citations.

2. What purports to be a brief of the evidence seems to be merely a transcript of the stenographer’s notes, extensively interspersed with objeetions to testimony, statements and arguments of counsel, and colloquies between .court and counsel, and between counsel, none of which should properly find place in a brief of evidence. Hathcoch v. UcGouirk, 119 Ga. 980 (47 S. F. 5G3) ; Culver v. Silver, 113 Ga. 1142 (39 ¡3. E. 472).

Indictment for misdemeanor, from city court of Savannah — ■ Judge Norwood. December 21, 1907.

Submitted February 3,

Decided February 14, 1908.

W. B. Stubbs, Raiford Falligant, for plaintiff in error.

W. W. Osborne, solicitor-general, W. W. Gordon Jr., contra.

3. This court can not undertake to go through a mass of immaterial matter and pick out that which is material, and will not undertake to “pass upon assignments of error requiring a consideration of evidence,” where the document in the record, purporting to be a brief of the evidence, is in the condition described in the preceding headnotes. Carmichael v. State, 111 Ga. 653 (36 S. E. 872). Judgment affirmed.  