Court Opinion

ID: 9832340
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:50:04.719867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:45.802004
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[2] On original hearing we did not fail to consider appellees’ brief which was then on file. The principal contention presented in the brief, and again presented by further written argument filed, was that the assignments of error addressed to the action of the trial court in suppressing the depositions of H. G-. McConnell, and the further action in peremptorily instructing the jury to return a verdict sustaining the plea, of privilege of the defendants, are without merit, because of the fact thafr there is no statement of facts in the record before us. In other words, it is insisted that the evidence heard on, the motion to suppress the depositions of McConnell and that introduced by the plaintiff to overcome the plea of privilege has no proper place in the bills of exception, and therefore cannot be considered.
Those contentions are without merit, in view of the decision of our Supreme Court in Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502, 240 S. W. 896, wherein it was said:
“If the evidence submitted on a plea of privilege be brought before the appellate court in either a bill of exceptions or a statement of facts, we are sure it should be considered. The bill of exceptions is an appropriate means of disclosing proceedings preliminary to the trial of a cause on its merits.”
[3] According to the testimony appearing in the bill of exceptions to the action of the court in suppressing the depositions of H. G. McConnell, it was proven without dispute that three terms of court had passed after the depositions had been filed and before the motion - to suppress was filed. The. motion, therefore, came too late, under the express •provisions of article 3676 of our Revised Statutes, which states specifically that all objections going to the manner and form of taking depositions shall be made and determined at the first term of court after the depositions have been filed and not thereafter. The objections to the depositions of McConnell, which were made the basis of a motion to suppress, were objections of the character' embraced in the provisions of that statute, and the court erred in sustaining the motion. We make this additional finding, in view of appellants’ motion now filed, that their assignment's of error presenting that question, which were not determined on original hearing, be now determined.
[4] The conclusion reached that the court erred in instructing a verdict in favor of the defendants on their plea of privilege was based upon the evidence recited in bill of exception No. 2, all of which was admitted and which did not include the deposition of H. O. McConnell that had been suppressed. That bill of exception purports to give the entire evidence offered upon the hearing of the plea of privilege. Hence no presumption can be "indulged that any other evidence was introduced upon that issue as would be indulged if a statement of facts was required in order to show the evidence heard upon the plea of privilege. And upon a further consideration of the brief of appellees and the argument therein made and authorities cited, we adhere to the conclusion heretofore reached that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded.
Accordingly, appellees’ motion for rehearing is overruled.