The only issue involved in the instant case is the question of a marriage vel non as claimed by the applicant for a year’s support, and denied by the caveators. The defendant in error contends that the evidence shows only a meretricious relationship between the parties. The plaintiff in error contends that the evidence shows conclusively that there was a common-law marriage per verba de prsesenti followed by cohabitation as husband and wife, which made a valid common-law marriage. The motion for a new trial contains only the general grounds: Held, that the evidence authorized the verdict finding that there w;as no common-law marriage; but that there was only a meretricious relationship between the parties, and that the relationship was unlawful *246in its nature. Peacock v. Peacock, 196 Ga. 441 (26 S. E. 2d, 608) ; Lefkoff v. Sicro, 189 Ga. 554 (6 S. E. 2d, 687, 133 A. L. R. 738).

Judgment affirmed.