1. There was no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance because of surprise by an amendment, it not appearing how and wherein the movant was less prepared to go to trial. Civil Code, § 5714; Jones v. Ragan, 136 Ga. 653 (5), 655 (71 S. E. 1098); Hill v. Harris, 11 Ga. App. 358 (75 S. E. 518).

2. There was evidence to support the verdict. No error of law appears; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.