
    John Tate, plaintiff in error, vs. Robert J. Cowart, Judge of the City Court of Atlanta, defendant in error.
    (Atlanta,
    January Term, 1873.)
    1. New Trial — Grounds—No Jurisdiction — Bill of Exceptions.— A motion for new trial was overruled, and the decision affirmed by the Supreme Court; the defendant then moved to set aside the judgment upon the ground that it was rendered by a Court having no jurisdiction *of the case; this ground was one of the points made upon the motion for a new trial; the motion was overruled, and defendant excepted. The Court committed no error in refusing to certify the bill of exceptions. (R.)
    2. Same — Arrest of Judgment. — Where a motion was made for a new trial on the ground that no jurisdiction was shown on the face of the indictment, this Court will treat that ground as a motion in arrest of judgment. (R.)
    
      Mandamus. Bill of exceptions. Practice in the Supreme Court. Before Judge Cowart. City Court of Atlante. March Adjourned Term, 1873.
    For the facts of this case, see the decision.
    Thrasher & Thrasher, for relator.
    No appearance for respondent.
    
      
      New Trial — Grounds—No Jurisdiction — Bill of Exceptions. — The principal case cited in Boswell v. State, 114 Ga. 42, 39 S. E. Rep. 897, with approval.
      Same. — Principal case cited with approval in foot-note to Perry v. Gunby, 42 Ga. 41.
    
   Warner, Chief Justice.

This is an application for a mandamus to compel the Judge of the City Court of Atlanta to sign a bill of exceptions. A motion for a new trial in a criminal case was made in the Court below and overruled, the case was brought before this Court by writ of error, and the judgment of the Court below affirmed. No second writ of error will be allowed as to any ground embraced in the original motion for a new trial, and a mandamus requiring the Judge of the Court below to sign and certify such second bill of exceptions will not be granted: See Perry vs. Gunby, 42 Georgia Reports, 41. The motion to set aside the judgment in this case on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction, was included in the first bill of exceptions, and was necessarily decided by this Court in its affirmance of the judgment of the City Court. If this Court had been of the opinion that there was no jurisdiction shown on the face of the bill of indictment, we would have treated the motion for a new trial on that ground as a motion in arrest of judgment, and would have ordered the bill of indictment quashed.

Let the rule for manudamus be dischared.  