
    Hill v. Hill.
    July 16, 1914.
    Equitable petition. Before Judge Ellis. Eulton superior court. ’ July 5, 1913.
    
      Daniel MacDougald, for plaintiff in error. T. J. Ripley, contra.
   Lumpkin, J.

1. There was no error in overruling the demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition, or in allowing the amendment thereto.

2. While some of the rulings of the court may not have heen free from slight inaccuracies, none of them are such as to require a new trial.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed..

All the Justices concur.  