Court Opinion

ID: 9606069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:46:20.757734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:33.920706
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On motion for reheai’ing counsel for the defendant in error complains that the court overlooked (b) “The fact that there was no proof whatsoever of a visible mark on the exterior door of the inner compartment which was designed to be opened by a key.” The plaintiff in error’s witness Joe Young testified: “The bottom of the safe was open and there was no inside door on that, I meant it was just like a cabinet—and then the bottom paxt is open. I mean that you can put a big object in such as a register pan, but the upper part had compartments in it where you might keep papers or something and lock. You, didn’t have to open anything but the big door to: put the drawers in the s'afe.” *642Earlier in the testimony of the same witness is found the following: “As the cash drawers were pulled out of the register, they were stacked up and stacked in the bottom of the safe— each register’s change.” The plaintiff in error’s witness Mrs. Betty Johnson testified in part as follows: “I put $3,272.48 in the safe. I had not counted that, but the reason I didn’t count it is because the drawers were checked out and then more money was taken into the drawers after I had checked them out but those drawers were just put into the safe.”
Placing a reasonable construction on the above testimony, the conclusion is inescapable that the only door necessary to be opened in order to reach the money that was abstracted or taken, if it was abstracted or taken from the safe, as contended by the plaintiff in error, was the big swinging outside door to the safe and upon which was located the combination lock. There was and is evidence in the record of visible marks on that door.

Rehearing denied.