Court Opinion

ID: 9645417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:23:52.542902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:28.096249
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant urges that we were in error in our original opinion in stating that the judgment of the trial court shows on its face that appellant did appear and participate in the trial, and particularly urges that we erred in holding that the recitals in the judgment cannot be impeached. Appellant contends that the statement of facts shows that a complete trial was, had on April 29, 1959, and that the hearing had on May 18, 1959, was an attempted further hearing in a case that was closed. We do not agree with that contention.
The statement of facts is in two volumes. The first, containing twenty-three pages, covers the evidence introduced on April 29, 1959; and the second, containing eighteen pages, covers the hearing had on May 18, 1959. It is duly certified and approved by the court, and shows on its face that the case “came on for additional hearing after recess on April 29, 1959,” before the court. The record also shows that although appellant’s counsel knew that the further hearing would be had on said date, he failed to appear. All the evidence heard at the first hearing was introduced by appellant. Therefore, the record in no way contradicts the recitals in the judgment. If there be any doubt that appellant had notice that the case was not closed on April 29, 1959, but recessed for further hearing until May 18, 1959, the affidavits of the trial court, and Smith and Nye, counsel for appellees, so state.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.