The issue presented is whether the court below abused its discretion in denying the defendant-appellant’s, Ni-gro’s, motion for a new trial based on alleged newly-discovered evidence. There was no manifest abuse of discretion by the trial judge in denying the motion. It is well settled that a new trial will not be granted unless it be apparent that the new evidence would probably produce a different verdict after a new trial. The evidence offered by Nigro does not meet this test.

Accordingly the order of the court below denying the motion for a new trial will be affirmed.