
    Wilcox et al. v. Mims.
    Simmons, J. — The exercise of due diligence would have enabled the party and his counsel to know before announcing ready for trial whether interrogatories taken in the cause were in the clerk’s office or not; and hence the discovery while the trial was in progress that they were not there, was not such cause for continuance as would render erroneous a refusal to grant it by the presiding judge in the exercise of his discretion. The request to charge, being partly correct and partly incorrect, was properly refused. The verdict was warranted by the evidence, and there was no error in denying a new trial.
    October 22,1894.
    Action for damages. Before Judge Sweat. Coffee superior court. April term, 1894.
    G. J. Holton & Son, for plaintiffs in error.
    E. I). Graham, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  