Since the remaining grounds urged in his motion for new trial are not argued in this enumeration of error, they ordinarily would not be addressed. See Dean v. State, 163 Ga. App. 29 (1) ( 293 S.E.2d 492) (1982); City of Douglas v. Rigdon, 116 Ga. App. 306 ( 157 S.E.2d 66) (1967). However, since this is a death-penalty case tried under the Georgia Unified Appeal Procedure, we "review each assertion of error timely raised by the defendant during the proceedings in the trial court ... regardless of whether error is enumerated in the Supreme Court."

3. (a) Although appellant bailor has not separately enumerated as error the overruling of each ground of the motion for new trial, since the motion as amended is included in the record and the brief argues each ground separately, the enumeration of the overruling of the motion as amended reaches these special grounds. City of Douglas v. Rigdon, 116 Ga. App. 306 (1) ( 157 S.E.2d 66) and cases cited; Lovett v. State, 108 Ga. App. 478 (1) ( 133 S.E.2d 595). (b) The special grounds complain of the exclusion of evidence relating to the custom, practices, and course of dealings of the railroads in regard to the interchanging of locomotives.

Consequently, unless error appears that is "harmful as a matter of law" we are not authorized to consider this enumeration. For statements of when an error (if there was one) meets the test for consideration under Code Ann. § 70-207 (c), see Nathan v. Duncan, 113 Ga. App. 630 (6), 636 ( 149 S.E.2d 383); Ga. Power Co. v. Maddox. 113 Ga. App. 642 (1) ( 149 S.E.2d 393); Hollywood Baptist Church of Rome v. State Hwy. Dept., 114 Ga. App. 98, 99 (3) ( 150 S.E.2d 271); Southwire Co. v. Franklin Aluminum Co., 114 Ga. App. 337 (2) ( 151 S.E.2d 493); Metropolitan Transit System, Inc. v. Barnette, 115 Ga. App. 17 (1) ( 153 S.E.2d 656); Windsor Forest, Inc. v. Rocker, 115 Ga. App. 317, 324 (4) ( 154 S.E.2d 627); Moon v. Kimberly, 116 Ga. App. 74 (2) ( 156 S.E.2d 414); City of Douglas v. Rigdon, 116 Ga. App. 306 (2) ( 157 S.E.2d 66), and Hawkins v. State, 116 Ga. App. 448 ( 157 S.E.2d 800). The situation presented here does not meet these tests. Cf. Williams v. State, 223 Ga. 773 (4) ( 158 S.E.2d 373).