Opinion
44833.
SUBMITTED OCTOBER 7, 1969.
DECIDED FEBRUARY 9, 1970.
Action for damages. Whitfield Superior Court. Before Judge Pope from Blue Ridge Circuit.
Stafford R. Brooke, for appellants.
John T. Minor, III, for appellee.
1. On motion of opposing counsel, a witness who came upon the scene of the collision after it occurred was not allowed to tell where the "lick" occurred in regard to the motor vehicles because it called for a conclusion on his part. The court properly sustained the objection as the answer stricken was not in reply to any question asked, and counsel did not pursue it further by asking questions within the knowledge of the witness. The cases of Stenger v. Weller, 47 Ga. App. 863 (1) ( 171 S.E. 829); Sikes v. Wilson, 74 Ga. App. 415 (2) ( 39 S.E.2d 902); Royal Crown Bottling Co. of Gainesville v. Stiles, 82 Ga. App. 254 (4) ( 60 S.E.2d 815); Davidson v. State, 208 Ga. 834 ( 69 S.E.2d 757), are not applicable since this witness neither qualified as an expert nor was he questioned as to what he saw at the scene from which he could have formed the basis for an opinion as to where the impact occurred. The testimony he was attempting to give was as to where the "lick happened" without establishing the facts upon which he based an opinion. Counsel failed to pursue the question further in the examination of the witness, and no error is shown. This enumeration of error is not meritorious.
2. Appellant's brief does not comply with Rule 17 as to substance and content, and in ruling upon enumerations of error 3, 4 and 5, we are unable to ascertain therefrom the issues of law as made in the appeal since the paginations of the record and transcript essential to a consideration thereof are not given. Since there is no such reference in either the enumerations of error or the brief, enumerated errors 3, 4 and 5 will be considered as abandoned. Wall v. Rhodes, 112 Ga. App. 572 ( 145 S.E.2d 756); Strickland v. English, 115 Ga. App. 384 ( 154 S.E.2d 710); Crider v. State of Ga., 115 Ga. App. 347 (1) ( 154 S.E.2d 743); Bode v. Northeast Realty Co., 117 Ga. App. 226 ( 160 S.E.2d 228); Brickle v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 117 Ga. App. 557 ( 161 S.E.2d 424); Coley v. Smith, 117 Ga. App. 822 ( 162 S.E.2d 216); Allen v. Carter, 119 Ga. App. 825 ( 168 S.E.2d 901).
3. The first enumeration of error is not argued in the brief, and is therefore deemed abandoned inasmuch as no oral argument was made.
4. Having considered every enumeration of error, and finding none, the judgment is
Affirmed. Jordan, P. J., and Whitman, J., concur in the judgment.