With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". applied the contemporaneous objection rule to alleged violations of the predecessor statutes to OCGA § 17-8-57. Indeed, in Pulliam v. State, 196 Ga. 782 (28 SE2d 139) (1943), the Court squarely addressed the issue and held that a complaint that the trial court expressed an opinion on the guilt of the accused or on what has or has not been proved could not be raised for the first time in a motion for new trial (much less on appeal), overruling cases that had held to the contrary. See id. at 790-791. Pulliam was the law in Georgia for more than a half-century, and on its authority many alleged violations of OCGA § 17-8-57 were deemed waived, including at least one claim involving a judge’s blatant comment on proof of venue. See Shepherd v. State, 203 Ga. 635, 636 (47 SE2d 860) (1948) (<HOLDING>). See also Archie v. State, 248 Ga. App. 56, 57

A: holding that where no motion for mistrial was made when the trial judge interrupted the questioning of a witness being asked whether the crime was committed in bartow county to say already proved it was in bartow county the claim was waived and could not be first raised in a motion for new trial
B: holding that claims raised by appellant for first time in motion for new trial were untimely and therefore waived
C: holding appellants issue was rendered moot because appellant was given the opportunity to make a record in support of his motion for new trial and appellate court considered that record in disposing of only issue raised in the motion for new trial
D: holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion
A.