
    Cohen v. The State.
    1. It is not cause for a new trial that the court required counsel for the accused to complete liis argument during the time usually taken for the dinner recess, the whole argument being made at the proper stage of the trial.
    
      2. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial.
    July 3, 1893.
    Indictment for murder. Before Judge Richard H. Clark. Rockdale superior court. April term, 1893.
    Henry Cohen was convicted of the murder of his wife by shooting her with a pistol. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted. He introduced no testimony, but in his statement claimed that the shooting was accidental. There was evidence tending strongly to show that he did the killing intentionally and without provocation.
    The only grounds for new trial besides those alleging that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, are, that the jury found contrary to a certain portion of the charge, and that the court erred in requiring the defendant’s counsel to make the concluding argument during the dinner hour, the case having been on trial for a day and a half, and the solicitor-general having finished his argument at fifteen minutes before twelve o’clock.
    G. ~W. Gleaton and J. R. Irwin, for plaintiff in error.
    J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and J. S. Candler, solicitor-general, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  