
    38283.
    WILLIAMSON v. THE STATE.
   Feankum, Judge.

1. The law presfcribés that all applications'for a new trial shall be filed within 30 days of the rendition of the verdict, together with the brief of the evidence. Code (Ann.) § 70-301. In Toney v. Webb, 76 Ga. App. 473 (46 S. E. 2d 355) the court said: '“ ‘. . ’. where a motion for a new trial is made in :term and Do ’ brief ’ of 'the' evidence is ■filed, and ho order of court- is taken' extending the time at which the brief of evidence may'be filed, it is proper to dismiss the motion.’ Reed v. Warnock, 146 Ga. 483 (1) (91 S. E. 545). And where, after’ the expiration of 30 days, neither a brief of the evidence has been filed nor an order takeh authorizing the filing of one at a later time,' the incomplete motion no longer legally pends and no subsequent order of the court can give it vitality. Taliaferro v. Columbus R. Co., 130 Ga. 570, 572 (61 S. E. 228). See Code §§ 70-301, 70-302; West v. Smith, 90 Ga. 284 (15 S. E. 912); Barnes v. Macon & Northern R. Co., 105 Ga. 495 (30 S. E. 883); Pinnebad v. Pinnebad, 129 Ga. 267 (1) (58 S. E. 879); Verner v. Gann, 144 Ga. 843 (88 S. E. 206), Garraux v. Ross, 150 Ga. 645 (104 S. E. 907); and Albritton v. Tygart, 9 Ga. App. 361 (71 S. E. 512).” Under the holding of the Toney case -the writ of error, upon the motion of the solicitor-general, must be dismissed.

Decided May 20, 1960

Rehearing denied June 2, 1960.

Albert A. Roberts, for plaintiff in error.

Dewey Hayes, Solicitor-General, contra.

2. The defendant'attempted tobombine an appeal in one bill of exceptions from the overruling of three separate motions for a ' new trial. There is-' no' provision of law for such procedure. Dickey v. State, 101 Ga. 572 (28 S. E. 980); Johnson v. Lock, 35 Ga. App. 587 (134 S. E. 197); Holtzendorf v. State, 78 Ga. App. 801 (52 S. E. 2d 624); Stephenson v. Futch, 213 Ga. 247 (98 S. E. 2d 374).

Writ of error dismissed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend and Car-lisle, JJ.,-concur:' - • ‘  