Court Opinion

ID: 9830495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:15:02.325941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:23.549701
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
After again considering the record herein we find no reason to disturb the conclusions announced in our original opinion. The motion for rehearing will accordingly be overruled without any general discussion. In view, however, of the insistence made that the evidence is conflicting on the question of whose wagon ran over and broke the culvert involved, and that hence we should reverse the cause for a determination of that issue of fact, it may not be improper to add that we have again carefully examined the testimony, and it but strengthens bur original conclusion that the evidence was without dispute that the bridge or culvert was broken by the driver of one of the wagons employed In hauling gravel and dirt for the traction company. It is true it is not so stated in direct terms, except in the affidavits of B. J. Allen and E. G. Wagoner attached to the defendant city’s motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. But the witness Glen Smith testified that he saw one of the “dump” wagons run over the culvert. Others testified that the city at no time had in use any “dump” wagons. The accident in question was shown to have happened without dispute on the night of October 1st. The witnesses living east of the car track all testified that at the time and prior to the accident the improvement at the place of the acpident was and had been going on for some time; and that the wagons engaged in the improvement came from the east, hauling the gravel; that it was the gravel wagons that ran over the culvert. It was further shown by the witness Essex that the city did not begin its improvement until about the 11th day of October, and by other witnesses it was shown that the city’s wagons loaded with gravel came from the west, and its work was done several blocks behind that of the traction company. In view of the whole, therefore, it would seem idle to reverse the case for the determination of the issue suggested.
Motion for rehearing overruled.