Court Opinion

ID: 9776713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:42:48.462643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:41.731701
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ONION, Presiding Judge.
On rehearing appellant vigorously urges that this court “has not considered properly the testimony concerning the alleged falsity of the Appellant’s representations concerning the ownership of the pipe.” This claim is apparently advanced in connection with appellant’s grounds of error on original submission that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
In his brief on rehearing, appellant quotes some excerpts from the testimony of T. S. Dean and Elmo Mangum relating to inspections of the pipe on appellant’s premises ; the fact that appellant had done prior business with the banks mentioned and the bankers were well satisfied with the prior relationship, and that the bank in Poteet had taken a judgment in a civil suit against this appellant growing out of this same transaction and had made no effort to collect such judgment but had chosen these criminal proceedings to enforce a civil debt.
This writer has carefully examined and read the entire record on rehearing and found the summary of the evidence set forth in our original opinion to be a fair one. The evidence was heard by the jury, and the law applicable thereto was submitted to the jury by the court’s charge. Considered in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, as we are required to do, we again determine the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.