
    223.
    Hinely v. The State.
    Motion for new trial, from Effingham superior court — Judge Seabrook. December 29, 1906.
    Submitted March 20,
    Decided March 28, 1907.
    
      D. H. Clarle, for plaintiff in error.
    
      N. J. Norman, solicitor-general, Livingston Kenan, contra.
   Hill, C. J.

Where the trial court, by an order, set down the hearing of a motion for a new trial for a fixed date in vacation, thereby allowing the movant a reasonable time to prepare and present for approval a brief of the testimony, and on that date the brief had not been prepared, this court will not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in refusing to grant any further continuance of the motion and in dismissing the same. Penal Code, §966; Civil Code,-§5485.

Judgment affirmed.  