Pee Curiam.
Upon consideration of the application for mandamus nisi in the above-stated case, the same is denied.
All the Justices concur, except Atlcinson and Sines, JJ., dissenting.
Original application for mandamus nisi, praying that the judge of the superior court be required to show cause why mandamus absolute should not be granted to compel his certificate to a bill of exceptions assigning error on his refusal to entertain an extraordinary motion for new trial, based on the alleged ground of newly discovered evidence of insanity of the movant at the time of commission of the crime of which he had been convicted. See Gore v. State, 162 Ga. 267 (134 S. E. 36) ; Gore v. Humphries, 162 Ga. 653 (134 S. E. 479), s. c. ante, 106 (135 S. E. 481).
Reuben A. Garland, Louis S. Maritzer, W. A. James, and Linton S. James, for movant.