It is a rule of long standing that one seeking a new trial in a criminal case on the ground of newly discovered evidence must file his own affidavit showing he did not know, and by the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have known, of the existence of such evidence until after the trial had been finally concluded. Lunce v. Commonwealth, 223 Ky. 66, 4 S.W.2d 362; Helton v. Commonwealth, 210 Ky. 566, 276 S.W. 522; Oakley v. Commonwealth, 158 Ky. 474, 165 S.W. 691; Pierce v. Commonwealth, 214 Ky. 454, 283 S.W. 418. Following this established rule of practice, the ground urged is not available on appeal. But, wholly apart from this rule, it is manifest that the affidavits relating to this newly discovered evidence do not set out such material facts as would authorize a court to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial on that ground alone.
" It also is argued that the commonwealth's attorney made an improper argument and that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a separate trial, but neither of these grounds is relied on in the motion and grounds for a new trial and therefore cannot be considered. Wootton v. Commonwealth, 245 Ky. 266, 53 S.W.2d 557; St. Clair v. Commonwealth, 245 Ky. 730, 54 S.W.2d 1; Morris v. Commonwealth, 235 Ky. 336, 31 S.W.2d 381; Lunce v. Commonwealth, 223 Ky. 566, 4 S.W.2d 362. It may be said in passing that an objection to the argument of the commonwealth's attorney, which it is claimed was improper, was sustained and the court admonished the jury not to consider it. The statement which is charged to be improper, was: "No one denies the commission of the crime." It is argued that this statement violates the inhibition found in section 1645 of the Kentucky Statutes forbidding comment on the defendant's failure to testify in a criminal case, but we held to the contrary in Divine v. Commonwealth, 236 Ky. 579, 33 S.W.2d 627, and Ridner v. Commonwealth, 242 Ky. 557, 46 S.W.2d 1102.