It is there stated: "First, it should be pointed out that the assignments of error do not direct themselves to questions of evidence but are assignments of error which in effect say that the lower court could not pass an order containing the various provisions complained of in the bill of exceptions regardless of the evidence." Under the rule of practice as held in Tift v. McCaskill, 171 Ga. 289 (3) ( 155 S.E. 192), where the brief of the attorneys for the plaintiff in error confines the issues involved to specified points, all other questions made by the assignments of error in the bill of exceptions will be treated as abandoned. Similar pronouncements are found in Cumby v. New Albany Box c. Co., 58 Ga. App. 843 ( 200 S.E. 307); Lander Motors, Inc. v. Lee Tire c. Co., 89 Ga. App. 194, 200 ( 78 S.E.2d 839), and in other opinions of this court. Manchester v. State, 171 Ga. 121 (1) ( 155 S.E. 11); Roseman v. Wright, 209 Ga. 748 (1) ( 76 S.E.2d 7); Wright v. State, 217 Ga. 453, 454 (1) ( 122 S.E.2d 737). So, this court is not privileged to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to support the parts of the decree to which exception is taken.

In his brief defendant's counsel has urged only two of the special grounds; thus all others are deemed abandoned. Tift v. McCaskill, 171 Ga. 289 (3) ( 155 S.E. 192); Lander Motors, Inc. v. Lee Tire c. Co., 89 Ga. App. 194, 200 ( 78 S.E.2d 839). 1. One of the special grounds urged is that the solicitor in his opening statement to the jury asserted that the defendant had discussed with the prosecutrix some form of settlement, and that the court erred in refusing a mistrial on account of that remark by him.

Fidelity Deposit Co. v. Butler, 130 Ga. 225, 243 (3) ( 60 S.E. 851, 16 L.R.A. (NS) 994); Ponder Co. v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 165 Ga. 366 (5) ( 140 S.E. 761). Neither does it have application to nonresidents, as they could not reasonably be charged with knowledge of a custom prevailing in this State. McCall v. Herring, 118 Ga. 522 (1) ( 45 S.E. 442); Lander Motors v. Lee Tire c. Co., 89 Ga. App. 194 (2) ( 78 S.E.2d 839). The question whether or not a custom has been shown and is applicable under the facts of the case is ordinarily for the jury.