Court Opinion

ID: 9829442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:18:32.910464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:01.179467
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
A witness for appellant who was riding with him at the time testified that the rate at which appellant was driving on the occasion in question was probably 20 miles per hour. This does not affect our ruling to the effect that appellant’s complaint that the court submitted special issue No. 17 to the jury comes too late.
Appellant calls our attention to the fact that his motion for a new trial, which presents the complaint that his *862marked copy of court’s charge was inadvertently handed the jury, was not presented to the court, but overruled by operation of law. As we' have no jurisdiction in the first instance to pass on whether there was evidence sufficient to vitiate the verdict, but can only rule on whether the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s complaint that there was such evidence, we assumed erroneously that the complaint had been presented below. We are unable to sustain appellant’s assignment of error in that connection because the error, if any there was, was waived. Accordingly, we withdraw the last three paragraphs of our original opinion filed herein on January 23, 1941.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing will be refused.
Motion refused.