1. In this suit against a municipality, for unpaid salary on account of the alleged unlawful discharge of the plaintiff before the expiration of the alleged period of employment, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and refused a new trial, as in City Council of Augusta v. King, ante, 111 (187 S. E. 268), City Council of Augusta v. Lassiter, post, 122 (187 S. E. 270), and City Council of Augusta v. Kelly, 53 Ga. App. 589 (186 S. E. 222). Some of the ordinances involved being identical, and the others, although slightly differing, being essentially similar in effect, the questions presented by the exceptions in the instant ease are controlled by those decisions adversely to the contentions of the municipality. See also City Council of Augusta v. Widener, 51 Ga. App. 365 (180 S. E. 364), and Elliott v. Augusta, 49 Ga. App. 568 (176 S. E. 548), upon which those decisions were partly based. All of the exceptions being without merit, the court did not err in refusing a new trial.
2. “This case does not appear to have been brought to this court for delay only, and the _motion to assess damages for 'this reason is denied.” City Council of Augusta v. King, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
Sutton, J., concurs. Stephens, J., dissents.