Court Opinion

ID: 9827772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:50:31.057923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:36.430664
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
In the original opinion, summarizing plaintiff’s allegations, we said that, he alleged the installation in his drug store of “an electrically operated machine for the amusement of customers and loiterers”, etc.
Counsel for appellant contend that, the word “loiterers” is not found in plaintiff’s petition, that it is an offensive term, and, in the connection used, reflects lipón those who frequent plaintiff’s store.
After alleging the installation of the machine in his drug store, as an advertising medium, plaintiff said that it was also “for •the amusement of his customers and persons waiting around his store”. We used the word “loiterers” as a paraphrase of the language, “and persons waiting around his store”.
Plaintiff seems to have divided those frequenting his store into two classes, — customers, and those simply waiting around. If the word “loiterers” is not the correct designation of those who simply wait around, it would be hard to find a descriptive term. The word has no offensive or opprobrious significance, but, as plaintiff’s counsel think so, and as we are not wedded to the expression, the word giving offense will be deleted, and, in lieu, plaintiff’s own language, to wit: “and persons waiting around his store”, will be substituted.
We have duly considered all grounds urged for rehearing, but are still of opinion that, the question presented is moot, therefore, the motion for rehearing is overruled.