
    Williams v. The State.
   Per Curiam.

The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial, based upon the extraordinary ground of newly discovered evidence. Such motions are not generally favored, and should not be granted unless there is a likelihood that upon a second investigation a result different from that first obtained would be reached. The newly discovered evidence, the validity and credibility of which was addressed to the trial judge, would not likely produce a different result, and the court did not abuse his discretion in.refusing the grant of another trial.

Judgment wffirmed.

All the Justices concur, except

No. 8488.

January 16, 1932.

Atkinson, J.,

dissenting. “When material evidence, not merely cumulative or impeaching in its character, but relating to new and important facts, is discovered after a trial, and it appears that the failure to discover it before trial was not due to a want of diligence, and when the nature of the newly discovered evidence is such that it might, on am other hearing, produce a different verdict, a motion for a new trial, based on the ground of such newly discovered evidence, should be granted.” Carr v. State, 106 Ga. 737 (32 S. E. 844); Mathews v. State, 56 Ga. 469; Dale v. State, 88 Ga. 552 (5) (15 S. E. 287); Fellows v. State, 114 Ga. 233 (39 S. E. 885); Grow v. State, 5 Ga. App. 70 (62 S. E. 669); Thompson v. State, 60 Ga. 619; Hill v. State, 161 Ga. 188 (5) (129 S. E. 647). The alleged newly discovered evidence in this case is of such character as would likely produce a different result, and the judge erred in overruling the extraordinary motion for a new trial.

G. C. Anderson and Joseph Law, for plaintiff in error.

George Hains, solicitor-general and John M. Graham, contra.  