¶11. A ground of a motion for new trial which complains of a ruling under which certain evidence was., admitted, But which fails to disclose what objection, if any, was interposed to its admissibility at *366tlie time it was offered, can not be considered. Smith v. Smith, 133 Ga. 170 (3) (65 S. E. 414).
¶22. An attack upon a statute as unconstitutional, made for the first time in the brief of counsel in the Supreme Court, will not be considered. In this connection see Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co. v. Hardin, 110 Ga. 433 (35 S. E. 681).
¶33. The evidence was conflicting, but sufficient to support the verdict; and there was no error in refusing to grant a new trial.
¶4Judgment affirmed.