
    12226.
    BONNER, administrator, v. BONNER.
    The finding of the jury upon the issue as to excessiveness of the amount set apart as a year’s support to the widow was authorized by the evidence, and the overruling of the motion for a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.
    Decided May 11, 1921.
    Appeal; from Carroll superior court — Judge Terrell. December 23, 1920.
    Mrs. Bonner applied for a year’s support for herself as the widow of George A. Bonner, the appraisers awarded her $1,000, and she elected to take it in the following property: 25 bushels of corn in the shuck, 200 bundles of fodder, and “ also the interest in land lot No. 67 in the 11th District of Carroll county, Georgia, owned and controlled by George A. Bonner in his lifetime.” The administrator of the estate of- George A. Bonner filed a caveat to the return of the appraisers, and alleged therein that the amount set out was excessive, that the valuation by the appraisers of the property selected by the widow was too low, that the property was worth $5,000, and that the appraisers all lived in Carrollton, some eight miles distant from the home of the decedent, and knew nothing about the manner and style of living of his family or the solvency or insolvency of the estate, and that none of these matters were considered by them in making their award. Dpon an appeal to the superior court the jury awarded the widow $750; the administrator’s motion for a new trial was overruled, and he excepted.
    
      R. D. Jackson & Son, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Boykin & Boykin, contra.
   Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) 1. Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, a special ground of a motion for a new trial must be complete within itself; and a ground complaining of the admission of evidence must- show that the evidence was admitted over the objection of the movant and that the objection was made to the court at the time the evidence was offered; and the ground must further show what was the objection. Under this ruling the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial cannot be considered.

2. Under all the facts of the case, none of the remaining grounds of the motion for a new trial shows material error.

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.  