Sangster v. State

Broyles, C. J.

Under the counter-showing made by the State, and the discretion vested in the trial judge, he did not err in overruling the ground of the motion for a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence.

2. The evidence amply supports the verdict; the testimony of the defendant’s accomplice was sufficiently corroborated; and the refusal to- grant a new trial was not error for any reason assigned.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.