Case Name: The State of Kansas v. Fred Coulter
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1889-01
Citations: 40 Kan. 673
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Kansas v. Fred Coulter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 673–674

Head Matter:
The State of Kansas v. Fred Coulter.
Pbaotiob; Motion for Rehearing. Upon a motion for the rehearing of a cause, the supreme court will only consider such alleged errors as were specifically pointed out by counsel upon the original hearing.
Motion for Rehearing.
The facts are stated in The State v. Coulter, ante, pp. 87, et seq., wherein the opinion was filed during the session of the court in October, 1888. The appellant filed a motion for a rehearing which the court overruled at its session in February, 1889, and then filed the opinion infra.
Glass & Pola ck, for appellant.
S. £■ Bradford, attorney general, and E. A. Berry, county attorney, for The State.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,:
It has often been decided by this court that only such alleged errors as are specifically pointed out by counsel, will be considered by this court. (Powers v. Kindt, 13 Kas. 74.)
Again, where counsel fail to specify any matter as error and this court perceives no error in the record, the judgment of the court below will be affirmed. (Thom v. Davis, 16 Kas. 22.)
Further, where it is alleged that the trial court erred in its rulings, it is the duty of the' party complaining to indicate wherein the error consists, as well as the particular ruling of which he complains. (The State v. Jennerson, 14 Kas. 133.)
In the motion for a rehearing of this cause, various matters are alleged as error which were not specifically pointed out 'by counsel upon the original hearing. Under the frequent decisions of this court we are not called upon to consider or determine the matters alleged as error in the motion for rehearing, as a party is not entitled to a rehearing upon alleged errors appearing in the record, which were not specifically pointed out by counsel at the original hearing. None of the newly-alleged grounds of error are stated in the briefs.
The objection that the opinion was filed by a commissioner, is not well taken. The opinion was prepared by a commissioner under the direction of the court, but was filed by the court and not by any commissioner. Under these circumstances, the motion for a rehearing will be denied.