1. After the accused has been convicted of the crime of which he was charged, and has made a motion for a new trial, and the judgment denying it has been affirmed by this court, when an extraordinary motion for a new trial is made, based on the ground of newly discovered evidence, it should be made to appear that such evidence is so material that it would probably produce a different result on another trial. Young v. State, 56 Ga. 403 (4); Rogers v. State, 129 Ga. 589 (59 S. E. 288); Brown v. State, 141 Ga. 783 (82 S. E. 238).

2. Such an extraordinary motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and a refusal to sustain it will not be reversed unless such discretion is abused. Brown v. State, supra.

3. A consideration of the evidence produced on the trial is necessary to determine whether the alleged newly discovered evidence would be likely • to produce a different result; and since the present record does not contain a brief of such evidence, it can not be said that the judge abused his discretion in refusing to sustain the motion.

Judgment affirmed.