Lane v. State

Bbotles, P. J.

1. The alleged newly discovered evidence was purely cumulative, and the court did not err in overruling the grounds .of the motion for a new trial based thereon.

2. There was some evidence which authorized the defendant’s conviction,, and, the verdict having been approved by the trial judge, this court is without authority to interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Sarwell, JJ., concur.