Court Opinion

ID: 9830968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:40:08.415115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:28.868962
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the original opinion, we had occasion to refer to the testimony of Dr. Stout, witness for appellant, and quoted him as saying that: “Irritation of the cqlon could be brought about by trauma-tism, and if a man falls on a hard substance from a standing position in such a way as to bruise the colon or intestines, it would produce that effect.”
In their motion for rehearing, appellants direct our attention to the fact that Dr. Stout said it “could produce that effect,” and not that it “would produce that effect,” as stated in the opinion. This criticism is well taken. We should have used the word “could” instead of “would,” and the opinion will be corrected accordingly.
After due consideration, appellants’ motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.