
    3867.
    Kirk v. The State.
    Decided January 30, 1912.
    Accusation of sale of liquor; from city court, of Carrollton— Judge Beall.
    November 4, 1911.
    
      Buford Boylcin, for plaintiff in error.
    
      C. E. Roof, solicitor, contra.
   Hill, C. J.

The discretion of the court in refusing to grant a new trial on an extraordinary motion therefor, based on alleged newly discovered testimony, was properly exercised, where it appeared that the testimony alleged to be newly discovered was substantially the same as in the original motion for a new trial, made on the same ground, and was only cumulative and impeaching in character, and would probably not produce a different verdict on a second trial.

Judgment affirmed  