where the accused had an opportunity to challenge the grand jury but failed to do so, and thus implicitly recognizing that a propter affectum challenge may be made pre-indictment); Williams, 69 Ga. at 28 (propter affectum challenge to the plea “came too late” but recognizing that “[i]f, however, it be deemed important in a particular case to fight the prosecution in limine, diligence requires that the challenge be made before the bill is found”); Smith v. State, 62 Ga. App. 498, 500 (1) (8 SE2d 797) (1940) (citing Williams and Lascelles with approval and finding no evidence to support plea in abatement or any allegation that the defendant had no opportunity to challenge the grand jurors before the indictment was found); Stapleton v. State, 19 Ga. App. 36 (1) (90 SE 1029) (1916) (<HOLDING>). 4. Brown Timely Challenged Grand Juror Bias
holding initial indictment which was subsequently found to be invalid tolled the thirtyday period and superseding indictment alleging different charges based on same fraudulent acts as earlier indictment was therefore timely holding that the dismissal of an indictment before trial and institution of a superseding indictment does not trigger double jeopardy holding that a found in indictment need not allege all of the elements of entry holding that challenge was propter affectum and should have been urged before the indictment was found holding that a failure to object to the error in the indictment at trial waives a right to challenge the indictment at a latter stage in the proceedings