
    Dawson v. Briscoe et al.
    
    1. It is no ground for dismissing a motion for a new trial, that the brief of evidence contains some superfluous matter; and an error of the court in approving the brief over objection is cured by the previous written assent of the objecting counsel to the correctness of the brief. The proper motion would have been to purge the brief of all its superfluities, pointing out the same specifically.
    2. On the merits, the case is within the rule that the first grant of a new trial will not be interfered with.
    July 16, 1894.
    Motion for a new trial. Before Judge Bichar H. Clark. DeKalb superior court. August term, 1898.
    W. J. Albert and T. C. Battle, for plaintiff.
    Lewis & Green, for defendants.
   Judgment affirmed.  