Court Opinion

ID: 9833932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:09:47.467763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:09.393811
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing states that evidence as to Scott’s absence from the trial was introduced first by appellants’ counsel.
Reference to the statement of facts shows that appellee is mistaken in this. The first witness introduced was appellee, and in his examination in chief he stated: “Mr. Scott is not here; that is, I understand he is not.” Then he was cross-examined by counsel for appellant,, who inquired further with reference to that statement. In the course of the examination, the absence of Scott from the trial at a time when every considetation apparently demanded his presence was greatly emphasized. Appellants’ counsel, realizing that fact, and for the purpose of neutralizing its damaging effect, discussed it in his argument to the jury. In reply to the argument, appellee’s counsel discussed it as stated in the original opinion. There was nothing improper in these proceedings, and the error *1064lies solely in the refusal of the trial judge to grant the application for a new trial when Scott’s absence had been satisfactorily explained. That appellant has been prejudiced by the proceedings is clear from the record.
The motion for rehearing is accompanied by affidavits of the trial judge and appellants’ counsel, in which it is stated that the record in this case discloses that appellants’ counsel introduced testimony explaining the absence from the trial of Oal T. Scott. This is.true, but it was after appellee, in response to a question from his own counsel, had stated that Scott was not present. We cannot, however, consider these affidavits for any purpose. Affidavits affecting matters occurring during the trial, and which do not appear in the transcript or statement of facts, cannot be considered by appellate courts unless they go to the question of the jurisdiction of said court. Holliday v. Sampson, 42 Tex. Civ. App. 364, 95 S. W. 643; Hall v. Reese’s Heirs, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 221, 58 S. W. 974; Maverick v. Routh, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 669, 23 S. W. 596, 26 S. W. 1008; Albright v. Corley, 40 Tex. 105.
The motion is overruled.