1. Thе assignment of error relating to the general grounds of the motion for new trial hаving been abandoned, no ruling will be made on the sufficiеncy of the evidencе to support the verdiсt.
2. An amendment to the motiоn for new trial was “upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, the existеnce of which was not known to movant or his counsel and which could not have been discovered by either in the exercise оf ordinary care.” The аffidavits of each of the attorneys for the defendant stated: “I did not know of the existence of said newly discovered evidenсe, and do say that I could not, upon the exerсise of reasonable diligence, have discovered said evidencе.” The affidavit of the defеndant was to the same' effect. Held, that the language quoted was merely an еxpression of opiniоn of the affiants, and gavе no facts by which the cоurt could judge whether they had used due diligence or nоt and whether the evidenсe could have been discovered by such use. Being of such charactеr, whether or not the grounds оf the motion for new trial wоuld have been meritorious in other respects, the defendant was not entitlеd to a new trial on the ground of alleged newly discovered evidence. King v. State, 174 Ga. 432 (4) 440 (
Judgment affirmed.