
    748.
    HOLLOMAN v. CITY OF TIFTON.
    1. A bill of exceptions reciting that the trial judge sustained a general demurrer to the petition, and alleging that “to this order sustaining said demurrer plaintiff excepted, and now excepts and assigns the same as error,” is not subject to dismissal on the ground that it contains no sufficiently definite assignment of error. Huxford v. Southern Pine Co., 124 Ga. 181 (52 S. E. 439); Melson v. Thornton, 113 Ga. 99 (38 S. E. 342); Burns v. Horkan, 126 Ga. 161 (54 S. E. 946).
    '2. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer.
    Complaint, from city court of Tifton — -Judge Eve. August 3, 1907.
    Submitted December 11,
    Decided December 20, 1907.
    
      R. D. Smith Jr., for plaintiff. W. J. Wallace, for defendant.
   Powell, J.

If the allegations be true, the judgment of conviction was erroneous, and subject to be set aside on certiorari; but it was not void. The court had jurisdiction to try for the offense charged, and there being no exception regularly taken to the judgment rendered, the defendant was concluded by it as to his guilt of the offense charged. There are many other reasons why a suit of this character can not be maintained, but, in the light of the one given, others would be superfluous. Judgment affirmed.  