Court Opinion

ID: 9868859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 19:01:55.430233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:56.340279
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Decided January 19, 1910.
In the opinion in this case we said: “Besides, we are of opinion that the evidence as to the reputation of Parmer would have been inadmissible if the. witness had been present at the trial.” It was not necessary to the decision of the point then being discussed to decide upon the admissibility of the proposed evidence of Parmer’s general reputation as a forger of land titles. That sentence will be erased, leaving the question unaffected by this opinion.
The motion is overruled.

Affirmed.