The record contains none of the evidence adduced upon the hearing of the motion on January 25, 1959, and this court has no way of determining whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion in overruling these grounds of the motion for new trial. Hall v. State, 141 Ga. 7 ( 80 S.E. 307); Tolie v. State, 184 Ga. 518 ( 192 S.E. 35); Kennedy v. State, 191 Ga. 22 (6) ( 11 S.E.2d 179); Verdery v. Campbell, 203 Ga. 211 ( 46 S.E.2d 66); Butts v. State, 211 Ga. 16 ( 83 S.E.2d 610). 6. It was not error for any reason assigned to deny the motion for a new trial as amended.

The grant or denial of a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is largely discretionary with the trial judge. The discretion exercised will not be disturbed in absence of abuse. Verdery v. Campbell, 203 Ga. 211 ( 46 S.E.2d 66); Loughridge v. State, 202 Ga. 129 ( 42 S.E.2d 473); Loomis v. State, 78 Ga. App. 336 (13) ( 51 S.E.2d 33). Here, neither the affidavit of the defendant nor that of his counsel presented facts showing what diligence each exercised in determining what knowledge of the incident the defendant's daughter possessed. It is not shown that she was questioned by either, although as shown by the defendant's testimony on the trial, he knew that the prosecutor had paid attention to her. Also, as shown by the prosecutor's testimony, the prosecutor claimed to have been with the defendant's wife, daughter and two sons shortly before the altercation.

Southern Fertilizer c. Co. v. Carter, 21 Ga. App. 282 (2b) ( 94 S.E. 310). Only one of movant's counsel, of which there were two of record, has made affidavit that he exercised the required diligence, and this is likewise a fatal defect. Verdery v. Campbell, 203 Ga. 211 (1) ( 46 S.E.2d 66). This ground furnished no basis for the grant of a new trial. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial as amended or in overruling the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.