was read and published.” (emphasis supplied)); Morris v. State, 177 Ga. 365, 369 (5) (170 SE 217) (1933) (“[T]he verdict was again read and published by the solicitor-general in the presence of the defendant.” (emphasis supplied)); Johnson v. State, 154 Ga. 529, 530 (114 SE 713) (1922) (“|T]n the presence of the court and jury the court then ordered the verdict published, and the same was read by the clerk in the presence of movant, the defendant.” (emphasis supplied)); Livingston v. Taylor, 132 Ga. 1, 7 (6) (63 SE 694) (1909) (“This verdict was received without objection.... This verdict was duly read and published in the presence of the jury and the court, and no other verdict of the jury was read and published.” (emphasis supplied)). Compare Hugley v. Holstein, 34 Ga. 572 (1866) (<HOLDING>), with Johnson, 154 Ga. at 530 (“The indictment
holding that verdict returned by jury should have been received and recorded and that trial court erred by granting a continuance after jury returned its verdict applying the principle announced in merchantsbank of macon 7 ga at 200 4 that a verdict shall be considered as published eo instanti in which it is handed to the plaintiffs counsel or other person directed by the court to receive it emphasis omitted holding that district court could not decide after jury returned verdict to treat jury verdict as advisory on issue not triable of right by jury but which was tried by consent of parties to nonadvisory jury holding that the trial court erred in granting the school boards posttrial motion for directed verdict because although the school board timely moved for a directed verdict during trial it did not serve its motion for directed verdict until the eleventh day after the verdict holding that trial court erred in granting plea in bar as to murder when prior to receipt and publication of fact that jury could not reach a verdict on murder count jury had indicated in notes to the trial court that it had acquitted defendant of murder and holding that there was no verdict until it was received and published in open court holding that after court dismissed case at plaintiffs request notwithstanding the fact that jury had deliberated upon the case and indicated that it had reached a verdict there was no case pending in court on which a verdict could be predicated and the information which the judge got from an inspection of the petition handed to him by the foreman of the jury was information which he received as an individual and not as a judge of the court and further holding that despite violation of defendants right to receive the verdict that was purportedly reached the writing incorporated in the bill of exceptions as a verdict of the jury was in law no verdict because it was not received in court and published as required by law and was instead entirely extraneous and extrajudicial