
    D. H. Baldwin, executor, plaintiff in error, vs. Archibald B. McCrea, defendant in error.
    (MoOat, J., having been of counsel in this cause, did not preside.)
    When a bill was filed for a new trial, in an action of ejectment, on the ground that the witness by whom the defendant proved adverse possession for the legal period, has since refreshed his recollection, and will now testify that he was mistaken as to the time when the possession commenced, and the bill was dismissed for want of equity, and that judgment was affirmed in this Court; a motion for a new trial, made at a subsequent term of the Court in the same case, on the same ground, will not be entertained by the Court. The qustion is res adju• dicata.
    
    Motion for new trial. Decided by Judge Clark. Sumter Superior Court. February Term, 1869.
    This is the same case reported in 37 Ga. B., 48, (Jones vs. McOrea,) with this exception : After the Supreme Court had affirmed the judgment of the Court below holding that a new trial could not be obtained by the bill for the reasons given therein, the counsel moved, at law, for a new trial upon the same ground. The Court overruled the motion, and that is assigned as error.
    
      S. H. Hawkins, for plaintiff in error,
    cij;ed the Code, sections 3668, 3670; Taylor vs. Sutton, 15 Ga. R., 103; Tarver vs. McCay, Ib., 550; Graham on N. Trials, 573-4; Robuck & Orr vs. Hawkins, ante, 174; Moore vs. Ulm, 34 Georgia Reports, 565; Augusta Manufacturing Company, vs. Wilbur, 31 Georgia R., 365; 11 Ga. R., 313; Gant & McPherson vs. Carmichael & Co., 31 Ga. R., 737 ; Candler vs. Hammond, 23 Ga. R., 493 ; Grady vs. Hightower, 1 Kelly, Ga. R., 253, and reversed; Jones vs. McCrea, 37 Ga. R., 48, and Mischell vs. Printup, 25 Ga. R., 182.
    James J. Scarborough, by W. A. Hawkins, for defendant in error,
    cited, Jones vs. MaCrea, 37 Ga. R., 48, and said this matter was res adjudicata.
    
   Brown, C. J.

We see no cause for complaint at the decision of this case, in 37 Ga. R., 48. That ruling is sustained by Mitchell vs. Printup, 25 Ga. R., 182, and by Beard vs. Simmons, 9 Ga. R., 4. The other application for new trial, in this case, was made upon the identical ground set forth in this application, and was overruled by this Court. A party can not avoid the effect of a solemn adjudication of his rights in a Court of competent jurisdiction, by a change of forum, from the equity to the law side of the Court. The maxim “ res judicatae pro veritate accipiuntur,” is applicable.

Judgment affirmed.  