Court Opinion

ID: 9868776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:56:38.883347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:55.201143
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The following is from appellee’s motion for rehearing:
“Now, in arguing this case (at the risk of being criticised for- going outside the record but also in an effort to try to explain to this court the context of the remarks and in a way make them intelligible), here is exactly what happened: I had been referring to the fact that Isbell had traded Tyler a farm for his equity in this apartment house; and had made some payments on the apartment house, and after he had bought it, and since the loan was supposed to represent some 65% of the value of the house, his farm must *1114have been of considerable value. And now, since he had lost it on foreclosure, he had lost his farm in West Texas in the deal and now these people, it looks like, are trying to steal his furniture. Then, on objection being made, here is exactly what I said: '
“ ‘Of course, you gentlemen understand that they are not exactly trying to steal his furniture, but if they take it away from him without any right to it, and there is not a great deal of difference, so far as he is concerned. He has lost his furniture if they are permitted to keep it.’
“The above is exactly what happened before and after the remark was made and stripped of its glaring appearance by virtue of being isolated from everything else in context, this court can readily see how perfectly innocuous and harmless the whole statement was.”
Even if we were permitted to go outside the record and accept this version of what happened in the trial court, we cannot see that thereby the noxious effect of the argument would be removed or in any substantial degree assuaged.
The motion is overruled.
Overruled.