Court Opinion

ID: 9528256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:38:50.156314+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:37.785164
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
The petition for rehearing of this appeal is denied.  Complaint is made that this court’s opinion filed in our decision of the case did not discuss appellant’s assignment.of error of the trial court in denying the motion for a new trial, with reference to the proposed testimony of newly discovered witnesses. We think that the testimony in question is in substance only cumulative to that of other witnesses who testified at the trial. Appellant at that time knew of the existence and identity of these additional witnesses, but had not been able to locate them. It may well be that- a continuance, if a motion therefor had been made, would have been granted. But no such motion was made. We think that the court was not guilty of any abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.
A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on February 7, 1935.
Preston, J., voted for a hearing.