
    Witteman v. Ludden & Bates Southern Music House.
    1. Since the passage of the act of November, 1889, there is no authority of law which justifies the clerk of the superior court, at the instance of the plaintiff in error, in sending to this court a complete transcript of the record below, his authority being limited to such parts of the record as are specified in the bill of exceptions.
    2. This being the first grant of a new trial, and one of the grounds of the motion being that the verdict was contrary to law, and it not legally appearing what the verdict was, the judgment granting a new trial is
    January 11, 1892.
    Practice in the Supreme Court.
   Affirmed.

The action of Witteman ivas on a contract and an account. In neither the bill of exceptions nor the transcript of the portions of the record therein specified and sent with it to this court, does it appear what the verdict was; but it appears that the defendant moved for a new trial because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence, and because the court overruled a motion' by the defendant for a nonsuit, and that a new trial was granted, to which the plaintiff excepted. During the present term and before the call of the case for argument, the clerk, at the instance of counsel for plaintiff, sent up a complete transcript of tlie whole record, which contains the verdict.

Garrard & Meldrim, for plaintiff.

Jackson & Whatley and A. C. Wright, contra.  