The evidence authorized the defendant’s conviction. The only special- ground of the motion for a new trial is based upon alleged newly discovered evidence, the material part of which was hearsay and inadmissible; and, moreover, this alleged evidence is not such as would likely cause a different result should a new trial be granted. The court therefore did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

•Judgment affirmed.

dissenting. The evidence relied upon to convict the defendant being weak and unsatisfactory; and the alleged newly discovered evidence being, in my opinion, admissible and such as would probably produce a different result upon another trial, 1 think that a new trial should be granted.