
    (101 So. 75)
    UPTAIN v. STATE.
    (6 Div. 410.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 3, 1924.
    Rehearing Denied June 24, 1924.)
    Criminal law <te>941 (I)— Denial of new trial not error; new evidence being cumulative.
    Order denying motion for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence was not error, where the evidence offered, while material, was merely cumulative.
    
      Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R. L. Blanton, Judge.
    Estel Uptain was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    L. D. Gray, of Jasper, for appellant.
    Motion for new trial should have been granted. Myers v. State, 19 Ala. App. 98, 95 South. 331.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
   SAMEORD, J.

There are no sufficient exceptions to the rulings of the trial court to present any question to this court for consideration and review save the ruling of the court in denying the motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The evidence offered on this motion, while material, was merely cumulative, and as such would not justify the trial court in setting aside the verdict of the jury nor authorize this court in reversing the case. Grissett v. State, 18 Ala. App. 675, 94 South. 271.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed. 
      other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     