
    14912.
    Durden v. The State.
   Luke, J.

Extraordinary motions for new trials are not favored by tlie courts, and in passing upon sucli motions the trial judge is vested with a wide discretion. In this case the extraordinary motion, based upon the ground that two of the jurors who tried the defendant had prior to the trial expressed an opinion as to the defendant's guilt, was met by a counter-showing by the State, and, under this showing, this court cannot hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling the motion.

Decided December 5, 1923.

Rehearing denied February 25, 1924.

Indictment for forgery; from Glynn superior court—Judge High-smith. July 6, 1923.

Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.

James B. Thomas & Son, for plaintiff in error.

Alvin V. Sellers, solicitor-general, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworih, J., concur.  