
    Hale v. The State.
    1. The evidence warranted the verdict.
    2. Newly discovered evidence which only tends to discredit a witness who testified on the trial, is not cause for granting a new trial, especially where it is not shown by affidavits of the accused and his counsel that they did not know of the evidence at the time of the trial.
    
      3. A juror will not be heard to impeach his verdict. There was no error in denying the motion for a new trial.
    October 12, 1892.
    
      Judgment affirmed.
    
    Before Judge Milner. Bartow superior court. January adjourned term, 1892.
    Akin & Harris, by brief, for plaintiff in error.
    A. "W. Fite, solicitor-general, contra.
    
   Conviction of bestiality; new trial denied. The grounds for new trial, besides those alleging that the verdict ivas not sustained by the evidence, were on account of alleged newly discovered testimony, and of misconduct of the jury, of which the verdict was claimed to be the result. The new testimony is to the effect that before the trial the prosecutor, the main witness, gave a materially different account of the transaction from that shown by his testimony. No affidavit by the defendant or his counsel accompanies this ground. The misconduct, as shown by the affidavit of one juror, was in settling a quarrel occurring in the jury-room between himself and another juror, upon condition that a compromise verdict of “attempt” should be returned, which was done.  