The court did not err in any of the rulings complained of.

Henry P. Taylor and E. C. Kidd d/b/a Taylor & Kidd Electric Company, filed a petition for damages against Clifton Adams.

The petition alleged that the plaintiffs were awarded a contract by reason of being the low bidder on certain electrical work to be done at Georgia State College for Women, the contract setting forth certain plans and specifications; that the defendant submitted a competitive bid and was not awarded the contract because his bid was higher than that of the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs ordered material and started installation according to the plans and specifications.

Paragraph 6 of the petition alleges: "That during the week of February 3, 1955, plaintiffs were in the process of completing their contract according to the plans and specifications, the defendant herein did go on the job, and took a flashlight and did purport to inspect said work plaintiffs were doing, although he had no legal right, or authority to do so, and after his inspection of the work plaintiffs had done that week, defendant did cause to be made a complaint to the effect that your plaintiffs were installing used material, and materials that were inferior in said job." (Denied in the answer of the defendant.)

Paragraph 7 alleges: "During the week of February 10, 1955, defendant did again inspect the work plaintiffs were doing, without authority or a right to do so and did again complain that plaintiffs were using inferior and used materials in said job." (The defendant answered this paragraph as follows: "Paragraph 7 is denied except to say that if defendant during the week of February 10, 1955, did observe any or all of the plaintiff's work he did so as a private citizen and that any complaints, if any, made by him can be clearly substantiated as result of his viewing said premises.")

Paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 allege that because of the complaints it became necessary for the plaintiffs to tear out work so that certain completed work could be reinspected and that the inspectors again found the work to be according to the plans and specifications.

Paragraph 11 reads: "It would not have been necessary for plaintiffs to have torn out and replace their work for inspection had defendant not made a complaint to the effect that plaintiffs were using inferior materials, and used materials in the job plaintiffs had contracted for." (Neither admitted nor denied in the answer.)

Paragraph 12 alleges that the remarks made by the defendant were slanderous and calculated to injure the plaintiffs with reference to their trade.

Paragraph 13 reads: "Defendant's remarks, and complaint that plaintiffs were installing used and inferior materials, were wilful and deliberate."

Paragraph 7A, added by amendment, reads: "Plaintiff shows that on the various times mentioned herein and on other times the exact dates unknown to the plaintiff herein, that the defendant did make complaint to W. L. Edwards, Winton Kemp, Herbert Meier, and J. H. Dewberry. All of the named persons being employees of the State of Georgia and connected with G. S. C. W. All as said complaints and slanderous remarks alleged in paragraphs 6 and 7 were made orally to the above named people."

The defendant filed general demurrers and the following special demurrers: "2. Defendant specially demurs to paragraph 2 of plaintiff's petition on the basis and ground that said petition and said paragraphs together with all the allegations contained therein and all the allegations contained in all the paragraphs of said petition do not substantiate the amount of damage as set forth in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs' petition and that the same is inconsistent and does not have as its basis any measure of damages whatsoever.

"3. Defendant specially demurs to paragraph 5 of plaintiffs' petition on the ground that the allegations of paragraph 5 are conclusions and not statements of facts and as such are irrelevant and unsupported by facts in paragraph 5 or in other paragraphs of plaintiffs' petition and that the said paragraph 5 should be stricken.

"4. Defendant further specially demurs to paragraph 6 on the grounds that the allegations contained therein are uncertain and indefinite, that the plaintiff should be required to set forth the time or day during the week of February 3, 1955, referred to in said paragraph 6 and further that the plaintiff should be required to set forth how, when and to whom the defendant did cause complaint to be made and to set forth in full measure the content of said complaint.

"6. Defendant demurs specially to paragraph 7 of plaintiffs' petition on the grounds that the same is uncertain and that the plaintiff should be required to set forth what time or day during the week of February 10, 1955, is involved and that the plaintiffs should also set forth how, when and to whom defendant did complain as well as the full nature and content of said complaint.

"7. Defendant further specially demurs to plaintiffs' petition on the grounds that the measure of damages is uncertain as to amount, method of determining and also as to why the same are due the plaintiffs.

"8. Defendant further demurs both generally and specially to the entire petition of the plaintiffs on the ground that the same is uncertain, vague and indefinite in that it is not clear by what right or under which phase of the law of this State the petition is brought and damages sought."

The judge overruled all demurrers.

A verdict and judgment were rendered in favor of the plaintiffs.

The defendant filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds and by amendment added two special grounds. It is to this judgment overruling the demurrers and the judgment denying the motion for new trial that the case is here for review.

The evidence is substantially as follows: The defendant testified that he was an electrical contractor and in 1954 was an unsuccessful bidder on buildings at G. S. C. W.; that he inspected his competitor's work and found it inferior.

E. C. Kidd, the plaintiff, testified that he was the lowest bidder and was awarded the contract; that after a portion of the work had been completed, it became necessary to tear it out and have it reinspected by the state inspector causing costs to nearly double from the original contract. On cross-examination the same witness testified that Mr. Adams, the defendant, never made any complaint to him, but his workers complained that the defendant came to the job every night when they knocked off; that he (Kidd) worked with the partnership of Taylor & Kidd as business manager; that he knew nothing about the electrical end of the business.

Henry P. Taylor, the electrician for the plaintiff partnership, testified that the firm was awarded the contract on October 20, 1954; that the firm posted bond, then started work the next day; that they ordered materials according to specifications in the contract; that six weeks to a couple of months later he saw the defendant; that the defendant and his sister were inspecting the electrical work after hours with a flashlight; that these visits and inspections of the defendant occurred a dozen times,; that the plaintiffs were caused to tear out work that had been inspected and passed on previously, in order to have it reinspected; that they were not required to replace any inferior materials but necessarily had to replace materials which were damaged in the tearing out which also cost additional money for labor and materials; that as the work progressed in the old building there were several changes made in the specifications, all of which were approved in advance by the engineers, and adjustments were made in the contract; that permission from the State was obtained prior to using a certain conduit which was already installed. The same witness testified that the only time he saw the defendant on his job was after the defendant had been granted the right to inspect; that he had agreed to this provided he (Taylor) could accompany Adams; that Adams failed to meet him at the agreed meeting place and commenced to inspect his (Taylor's) work alone. The plaintiff Kidd testified that additional expense was incurred which totaled $3,000.

Virgil Wills, a witness for the plaintiffs, testified substantially that he worked for Taylor & Kidd along with two or three other men who had been hired to do the extra work and that he saw no faulty material or inferior workmanship.

J. L. Horton, Jr., testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs, said that he checked the specifications thoroughly and found the job electrically secure and that he saw no faulty workmanship or inferior material. On cross-examination the witness testified substantially that he inspected the job in August 1955 and knew nothing of any corrections prior to that time.

Winton C. Kemp, maintenance engineer at G. S. C. W. and witness for the plaintiffs, testified substantially that the defendant discussed with him on several occasions defendant's complaints in regard to the plaintiffs' workmanship and materials.

Herbert Dewberry, employed by the Board of Regents to deal with contracts for various school buildings, testified that the defendant contacted him regarding the electrical work being done by the plaintiffs, and as a result, he wrote a letter to the plaintiffs.

Henry J. Tanner, a witness for the defendant, testified that he inspected the wiring and found used materials had been employed in the installations and that he considered some of the work bad.

There was considerable testimony as to whether or not the original plans and specifications had been changed. There was testimony that certain conduits containing wires were used conduits, which the proper authorities agreed could be used.

2. We have set out the essential portions of the evidence. We find that it is amply sufficient to support the verdict.

3. The special grounds are so interrelated with the general grounds that we shall not treat them in detail. Suffice it to say that the court did not err in the charge as contended for by counsel for the defendant. The general grounds are not meritorious.

The court did not err in any of the rulings.

Judgment affirmed. Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.