Court Opinion

ID: 9520935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:53:28.739495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:15.965041
License: Public Domain

The following memorandum was filed February 5, 1957:
PER Cueiam
(on motion for rehearing). The trial court requested an answer to the Third question but the parties submitted no argument on the subject. The state now says that we should have refrained from answering it without the benefit of argument. The Second question being answered unfavorably to the state’s contentions, any answer to the Third
*276aquestion does not affect the disposition of the cause and under these circumstances we conclude it would have been preferable to omit answering the Third question. Accordingly, we withdraw what is said in the opinion concerning it. The state’s motion for rehearing is denied.
*0H