
    Bowles v. Wicker, for use, etc.
    Submitted. March. 8, —
    Decided March 27, 1905.
    Appeal. Before Judge Hammond. Richmond superior court. December 12, 1904.
    
      Julian J. Zachry, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Samuel F. Garlington, contra.
   Kish, P. J.

1. The portion of the charge excepted to stated a correct abstract proposition of law. This being true, this court, as has been frequently ruled, will not, under a mere general assignment of error, inquire whether the charge excepted to was or was not adjusted to the facts of the particular case.

2. The evidence warranted the verdict and there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial. Judgment affirm,ed.

All the Justices concur.  