Court Opinion

ID: 9829239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:07:18.718893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:58.841316
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing, appellant briefs most interestingly his 11th proposition. We do not review this proposition and appellant’s authorities, because it is our conclusion that, while the proposition was formally advanced by appellant in his brief, it was waived by him in that it was not presented in such way as to require this court to review the exceptions present*255ed. The entire statement made by appellant under this proposition in its original brief was as follows:
“Statements and Remarks
“This proposition is germane to Appellant’s tenth assignment, page 45 hereon, and the fifteenth assignment of the motion for new trial.
“Defendant made his objections in writing to said instruction in the trial court in due time, for the reasons set out in the foregoing propQsition.”
The 11th proposition was waived by the original brief, and as briefed in the motion for rehearing, it constitutes an additional proposition which is in violation of the briefing rules. We are not basing this conclusion on the fact that appellant cited no authorities in his original brief; while not required to cite authorities, he was required to make a statement, supplemented by an argument, directing our attention to the errors assigned. However, if we are in error in this conclusion, the 11th proposition should be overruled as not constituting error.
After a careful review of all of appellant’s assignments on rehearing, they are overruled.