
    Boisclair v. The State.
    A verdict of guilty ’upon the trial of the main case will not be set aside because of a wrong finding, whether by the court or by a jury, upon a special plea of misnomer which was disposed of before the trial of the main case began, there being no direct motion to set aside the finding on the special plea, but only a motion for a new trial in the main case, with alleged error in disposing of the special plea as one of the grounds thereof. Kneéland et al. v. The State, 62 Ga. 395. Although there are cases in which a different line of practice has been pursued, they are not inconsistent with the one just cited, for in them no point was raised as to the correct practice. In the present case, the point was distinctly made in this court.
    March 14, 1893.
    Indictment for burglary. Before Judge Roney. Richmond superior court. October term, 1892.
    The defendant pleaded not guilty, and “ that his name is not now and never was Edwin Booklayer, as stated in the indictment, but is and has always been Edwin Boisclair; that his name never was Edwin Booklayer; that he is not now and was never known as Edwin Booklayer [nor] is he now, nor was he ever at any time called Edwin Booklayer; and that he was never at any time known or called by any other name than Edwin Boisclair.” The plea of misnomer, by consent of counsel, was submitted to the court without a jury. The court found against the plea, deciding that while the spelling of the name was different the pronunciation was the same. The trial on the remaining issues resulted in a verdict of guilty. Defendant moved for a new trial, one ground of the motion being that the court erred in finding against the plea of misnomer. The motion was overruled and defendant excepted, alleging error in the refusal to grant a new trial on said ground.
    M. P. Poster and Twiggs & Verdery, for plaintiff in error. W. H. Davis, solicitor-general, and Boykin Wright, contra.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  