4. While the demurrers to the petition were considered by the trial judge at the interlocutory hearing, they were, as the record shows, not ruled upon. Hence, the sufficiency of the petition to withstand the demurrers is not a question presently before us for determination, and no ruling will be made on that question. Code § 6-1607; Stevens v. Ga. Public Service Commission, 178 Ga. 59 (1) ( 172 S.E. 9); Pritchett v. Payne, 194 Ga. 84 (1) ( 20 S.E.2d 765); Sachs v. Dempsey, 203 Ga. 438 ( 47 S.E.2d 326). See Vance v. Vogel, 176 Ga. 132 ( 167 S.E. 112). Accordingly, error is not shown by the record.

No such point is made by the record or even hinted at in the bill of exceptions; and the Court of Appeals, as we have previously said, was without jurisdiction to decide a question not presented by the bill of exceptions. Sanders Mfg. Co. v. Dollar Savings Bank, 110 Ga. 559 (3) ( 35 S.E. 777); Hood v. Mayor c. of Griffin, 113 Ga. 190 ( 38 S.E. 409); Denny v. Broadway National Bank, 118 Ga. 221 (3) ( 44 S.E. 982); Pritchett v. Payne, 194 Ga. 84 ( 20 S.E.2d 765), and citations. Applying the principles stated above to the record before us, we are brought to the inevitable conclusion that the Court of Appeals erred in the rulings complained of.

In construing and applying these Code sections, this court and the Supreme Court have consistently held that no question will be considered by the appellate courts of this State unless the bill of exceptions and the record clearly show that that question was presented to and passed on by the trial court. Hart v. Phenix Insurance Co., 113 Ga. 859, 862 (39 S. S.E. 304); Pritchett v. Payne, 194 Ga. 84, 86 (1) ( 20 S.E.2d 765); Rushing v. Akins, 210 Ga. 450 (1) ( 80 S.E.2d 813); Paradies v. Warren Co., 53 Ga. App. 457 (2) ( 186 S.E.2d 438); Carpenter v. Lyons, 78 Ga. App. 214 (1) ( 50 S.E.2d 850); Nix v. State, 94 Ga. App. 141 (2) ( 93 S.E.2d 783). For the rule to be otherwise would be unfair both to the trial judge and to opposing counsel.

Moreover, it does not appear from the record in this case that any objection was urged against the testimony at the time it was offered on the ground that it referred to insurance and was prejudicial to the defendant for that reason, but this ground of objection is raised for the first time by the defendant in his brief filed in this court. "Questions not made in the record can not be considered by this court, although argued and insisted upon." Pritchett v. Payne, 194 Ga. 84 (1) ( 20 S.E.2d 765), and citations. The evidence excluded was competent and relevant to the issues on trial and was not subject to the objection raised against it, and the court erred in excluding the evidence and in overruling special grounds 2 and 3 of the motion.

Hand v. Berry, 170 Ga. 743, 745 ( 154 S.E. 239). See also Durden v. Meeks, 110 Ga. 319 ( 35 S.E. 153); Savannah, Fla. c. Ry. Co. v. Tolbert, 123 Ga. 378 (2) ( 51 S.E. 401, 3 Ann. Cas. 1092); Pritchett v. Payne, 194 Ga. 84, 86 (1) ( 20 S.E. 765); Calhoun v. Babcock Lumber Co., 198 Ga. 74, 83 ( 30 S.E.2d 872). In the present case the first attempt to attack section 22 of the act creating the City Court of Gwinnett County, as being in violation of the Constitution, is made in the brief of counsel in this court, and no constitutional question is presented for decision by this court.