If I am governed under the Conformity Act (40 U.S.C.A. § 258) by the procedural laws of Georgia, the court's authority does not extend to permitting subsequently to judgment (or verdict) additional pleadings to be filed which would materially change the pleadings on which the judgment was rendered. Nickerson v. Porter, 189 Ga. 671(1), 673, 7 S.E.2d 231. Nor can I order the verdict amended so as to make it apply to Civil Action No. 195 only (the larger parcel), and order a new trial as to the smaller parcel only; and for several reasons.
Consequently, this ground cannot be considered by this court. Nickerson v. Porter, 189 Ga. 671 (2) ( 7 S.E.2d 231); Ehrlich v. Mills, 203 Ga. 600 (2) ( 48 S.E.2d 107); Woodruff v. State, 204 Ga. 17 (4) ( 48 S.E.2d 885). 5.
Held: 1. A junior deed, properly recorded, taken without notice of an unrecorded senior deed from the same vendor and for a valuable consideration, has priority over such unrecorded senior deed. Code, § 29-401; Nickerson v. Porter, 189 Ga. 671 (3) ( 7 S.E.2d 231); Terry v. Ellis, 189 Ga. 698 ( 7 S.E.2d 282); Archer v. Kelley, 194 Ga. 117, 120 ( 21 S.E.2d 51); Patellis v. Tanner, 199 Ga. 304 ( 34 S.E.2d 84). 2.
These grounds are without merit, the first because too indefinite ( Norris v. State, 184 Ga. 397, 191 S.E. 375); and the other two because it does not appear that they were submitted within the time required by law. Code, §§ 70-207, 81-1101; Nickerson v. Porter, 189 Ga. 671 ( 7 S.E.2d 231); Rogers v. Manning, 200 Ga. 844 ( 38 S.E.2d 724). Moreover, the evidence did not authorize a charge on manslaughter. 5. The remaining special ground complains because the jury was confined in a room where telephone communication was available to the jurors between and with parties interested in the case, and it is asserted that the said "communication" was harmful and prejudicial to the defendant.
The complaint that the judge refused to give a stated charge as requested in writing does not show error, since it does not appear that the request was presented before the jury retired "to consider of their verdict." Code, § 81-1101; Brooks v. State, 96 Ga. 353 (4) ( 23 S.E. 413); Dickey v. Grice, 110 Ga. 315 (3) ( 35 S.E. 291); Nickerson v. Porter, 189 Ga. 671 (2) ( 7 S.E.2d 231). 3.
4. Special ground 5 of the motion for new trial fails to show error since it does not reveal that the refused written request to charge was presented before the jury retired to consider their verdict. Code § 81-1101; Nickerson v. Porter, 189 Ga. 671, 673 (2) ( 7 S.E.2d 231); Ehrlich v. Mills, 203 Ga. 600, 601 (2) ( 48 S.E.2d 107); Woodruff v. State, 204 Ga. 17, 18 (4) ( 48 S.E.2d 885); Ogletree v. State, 209 Ga. 413 (2) ( 73 S.E.2d 201); Hooks v. State, 215 Ga. 869, 871 (4) ( 114 S.E.2d 6). 5. The trial judge did not err in overruling the defendant's special demurrers.
Complaint cannot be made because of the refusal of the court to give in charge to the jury certain principles of law embraced in requests to charge unless the requests were made by the party making the complaint. McDonald v. Dabney, 161 Ga. 711, 713 (6) ( 132 S.E. 547); McRitchie v. Atlanta Trust Co., 170 Ga. 296, 320 (16) ( 152 S.E. 834); Nickerson v. Porter, 189 Ga. 671 (2), 674 ( 7 S.E.2d 231). A ground of a motion for a new trial is incomplete unless the ground alleges facts, or by specific reference to the record refers to facts sufficient to show that the same is meritorious. Lightfoot v. Southeastern Liquid Fertilizer Co., 102 Ga. App. 512, 513 ( 116 S.E.2d 651); Dillard v. Jackson's c. Concrete Co., 105 Ga. App. 607, 608 ( 125 S.E.2d 656).
This ground of the motion for new trial therefore fails to show error. Code § 81-1101; Nickerson v. Porter, 189 Ga. 671, 673 (2) ( 7 S.E.2d 231); Ehrlich v. Mills, 203 Ga. 600, 601 (2) ( 48 S.E.2d 107); Woodruff v. State, 204 Ga. 17, 18 (4) ( 48 S.E.2d 885); Ogletree v. State, 209 Ga. 413 (2) ( 73 S.E.2d 201); Hooks v. State, 215 Ga. 869, 871 (4) ( 114 S.E.2d 6). The general grounds were expressly abandoned.
Since the testimony was offered as a whole, and the assignment of error is upon the ruling rejecting the entire testimony, the court did not err in ruling out all three questions. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 189 Ga. 671 ( 7 S.E.2d 273). This ground does not show any abuse of the discretion of the trial judge in refusing to reopen the case and allow the testimony offered. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.