1. A subscribing witness to a will may give his opinion as to the sanity of the testator at the time of the execution of the will without setting forth facts upon which such opinion is founded.
2. A remark made by the judge during the progress of the trial, while a witness was on the stand, even if it were improper, cannot be made the ground of a motion for new trial where no motion to declare a mistrial or other objection was made before the verdict was received.
3. The evidence fully supports the verdict in favor of the propounder.
1. The first ground of the amended motion assigns error on the court's permitting one of the subscribing witnesses to the will, over objection, to testify that in her opinion the testator, at the time he signed the will, knew what was going on and what he was doing, the objection being that this statement of the witness was a mere conclusion, and that the witness could testify only as to the condition and circumstances, and it was for the jury to determine whether or not the testator had testamentary capacity to execute the will at that time.
A subscribing witness to a will may give his opinion as to the sanity of the testator at the time of the execution of the will, without stating facts upon which such opinion is founded. Reid v. Wilson, 208 Ga. 235 (1)
(65 S. E. 2d 913). There is no merit in this ground of the amended motion.
2. Amended grounds 2 and 3 complain that the trial judge, during the progress of the trial and while the witnesses were testifying, indicated bias and prejudice by certain remarks made to counsel and the witnesses. These assignments of error cannot be considered, for the reason that it does not appear that any objection was made by the caveatrix at the time these remarks were made, nor was any motion made for a mistrial. This court has repeatedly ruled that a remark made by the trial judge when ruling upon an objection to evidence during the progress of the trial, even if it be erroneous, cannot be made ground of a motion for new trial where no motion to declare a mistrial or other objection was made before verdict. Perdue v. State, 135 Ga. 277 (1)
(69 S. E. 184); Barnett v. Strain, 151 Ga. 553 (5)
(107 S. E. 530); Herndon v. State, 178 Ga. 832 (6)
(174 S. E. 597); Coates v. State, 192 Ga. 130 (3)
(15 S. E. 2d 240); Ealy v. Tolbert, 210 Ga. 96 (2)
(78 S. E. 2d 26).
468). We have carefully examined the evidence in this case, and are of the opinion that it fully supports the verdict in favor of the propounder. It was not error to deny the motion for a new trial as amended.