Opinion
39613.
DECIDED OCTOBER 8, 1962.
Forgery. Johnson Superior Court. Before Judge Ward.
Joe W. Rowland, B. B. Hayes, for plaintiff in error.
W. W. Larsen, Jr., Solicitor General, contra.
The defendant was convicted of forgery. His motion for new trial, as amended, was overruled. He excepted. Held:
1. Defendant, by special ground 1 of his motion for new trial, contends that the court erred in allowing certain testimony to remain in evidence over his objection that the testimony was a conclusion. This is the only objection to the testimony. This court held in West Lumber Co. v. Schnuck, 85 Ga. App. 385, 388 (4) ( 69 S.E.2d 577): "Ground 5 assigns error on the admission of certain evidence over the objection that the question called for a conclusion. This objection is so vague and general that it was not error for the court to overrule it and admit the testimony. Harris v. State, 69 Ga. App. 872 ( 27 S.E.2d 51)." To the same effect see Bernd Co. v. Rahn, 94 Ga. App. 713 ( 96 S.E.2d 185); Slater v. Russell, 100 Ga. App. 563 ( 112 S.E.2d 178). Accordingly, special ground 1 of the motion is without merit.
2. In special ground 2 of his motion the defendant contends that the court erred in requiring a witness to answer certain questions. The ground itself shows that there was no objection to the questions propounded to the witness, nor any motion made to rule out the testimony. "An assignment of error on admission of evidence, which fails to state that it was admitted over objection urged before the court, and the specific grounds of objection that were then stated to the court, does not present any question for decision." Justice v. Warner, 178 Ga. 579 (4) ( 173 S.E. 703). See Williams v. State, 186 Ga. 251 ( 197 S.E. 838). See also Pulliam v. State, 196 Ga. 782 (6, 7) ( 28 S.E.2d 139); Childs v. Ponder, 117 Ga. 553 ( 43 S.E. 986); Daniel v. Etheredge, 198 Ga. 191 (5) ( 31 S.E.2d 181). This ground is without merit.
3. Special ground 3 complains that the court erred in failing to charge, without a written request, as follows: "An intent to defraud is an essential ingredient in the offense of uttering and publishing a forgery, and the court in this case having omitted to properly instruct the jury that in order to constitute the offense, the intent to defraud must be shown." Since it is obvious that the above quoted language was not proper as an instruction to the jury, the court did not err in overruling this ground of the motion. American Iron c. Co. v. National Cylinder Gas Co., 105 Ga. App. 458 ( 125 S.E.2d 106), and cases therein cited.
4. The court did not err in overruling any of the other special grounds of the motion for any reason assigned. The evidence authorized the verdict finding the defendant guilty.
Judgment affirmed. Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.