Court Opinion

ID: 9832017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:33:02.986517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:41.142787
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
In his motion for rehearing appellant, among other things, requests that we also note in our opinion the finding of the trial court to the effect that appellant used diligence in trying to procure the personal attendance of the truck driver at the trial.
We quote the findings of the court in this respect.
“That under the circumstances, the court finds that the defendant failed to show due diligence in connection with the obtaining of the testimony of J. P. Minard prior to January 10, 1944, and that the defendant’s counsel had opportunity to take such deposition after January 10, 1944, and failed to avail himself of the opportunity whereupon the court was of the opinion that the defendant’s second motion for continuance should be overruled.”
“The court further finds that the defendant used diligence in trying to procure the personal attendance of the witness but was unable to do so because of the witness being in custody of the Army authorities.”
The two quotations, above shown, are taken from separate orders entered by the court, the latter being a nunc pro tunc entry, but they do not appear to be in conflict with each other. We do not see that the latter finding influences the result, since, as said in our original opinion, appellant’s complaint appears not to be that he could not obtain the testimony of the witness, but that he could not obtain his personal appearance at the trial. This distinction is fully discussed in our original opinion.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.