
    No. 1062.
    The State vs. Robert Robertson.
    Among the grounds of the motion for a new trial was the alleged discovery since the trial that the defendant could prove by one Alfred Young that he took no part in the disturbance on the night of the homicide, and was endeavoring to separate those who were fighting. The judge in overruling it says the homicide was not committed during any disturbance, and hence the evidence was not pertinent. Nothing in the record enabling the court to know more than is thus given, the trial judge is presumed to have correctly stated the fact, and is held to have correctly ruled.
    It is not error to refuse a new trial for cumulative proof.
    Two of the jurors who found this verdict were called the next day in another case, and on their voir dire said they did not understand the English language well enough to understand the argument of counsel, but coiild comprehend the witnesses and the judge. This was another ground for new trial urged, and it was held that objection should have been made when the juror was offered.
    Appeal from the District Court for St. Landry. Hudspeth, J.
    
      Perrodin, District Attorney, for the State. J. N. Ogden for Defendant.
   Marr, J.,

delivered the opinion affirming the judgment.  