Court Opinion

ID: 9828750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:41:29.33189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:52.648104
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion filed in this court on the 21st day of June, 1916, we made the following statement:
“Appellants’ sixth, seventh, and eighth assignments insist that the court erred in refusing to give to the jury their special charges Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. We are referred to appellants’ bills of exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 in support of said assignments. We have examined each of said bills of exception, and in none of them is it affirmatively shown that said charges were presented to the trial court, or to opposing counsel, before the main charge was read to the jury.”
And we held that as said bills did not show that said special charges were presented to the trial judge and opposing counsel before the main charge was read to the jury, the assignments complaining of the refusal of the court to give such charges should not be considered.
[5] Appellant J. M. Hawks has filed his motion for rehearing complaining of such statement and holding, and in said motion directs our attention to the fact that said bills of exceptions, which were approved by the trial •judge, does recite tha,t “at the proper time” said special charges were presented to the trial judge. In said motion it is insisted that the statefnent in said bills that said charges were presented at the proper time was sufficient to show that said charges were presented to the court and opposing counsel before the main charge was read to the jury, and that therefore this court should have considered said assignments.
Since our attention has been called to the fact that the bills do recite that said charges were presented to the court “at the proper time,” we conclude that such recital is sufficient to show that said charges were presented to the trial court before the main charge was read to the jury, but it is nowhere shown that they were presented to opposing counsel, and to this extent said assignments do not meet the requirements of the law. We still think the charge given by the trial court was all that was required, and, as we find no material error in our original opinion, appellants’ motion is overruled.