Court Opinion

ID: 9825240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:22:19.860703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:35.905715
License: Public Domain

Rehearing denied December 30, 1925.
On Petition for Rehearing.
(241 Pac. 1009.)
COSHOW, J.
The appellant has presented a petition for a rehearing basing his grounds upon the alleged failure of the court to consider appellant’s assignment of error No. 1; exception No. 5; general consideration of the objection to the testimony, and the alleged error in refusing to give a requested instruction. Referring to our opinion it will be observed that assignment of error No. 1 was considered in connection with other assignments of error very similar to if not identical with other assignments. The contention of the appellant is that the testimony of the plaintiff was introduced out of its proper order and was not thereafter supported by other testimony as plaintiff insisted would be done when objection was made to the introduction of the evidence objected to. In this we think the appellant is mistaken. The evidence referred to was offered to establish that the disease causing the damages was contracted on the farm of the defendant. There was evidence that the disease at one time existed on that farm; that when the disease once existed on a farm it was very difficult, if not impossible, to entirely eradicate it; that the plaintiff had never had that disease on his farm prior to the purchase of the four head of cows from the defendant and bringing them to his farm. The other witnesses in behalf of *561the plaintiff testified to the same effect—that is, that they had never had the disease unti] after they had bought cattle from the defendant and placed them with their other stock. The appellant concedes that the order of proof is largely in the discretion of the trial judge. We think that the evidence adduced was admissible, not remote, tended directly to prove the allegations that the cattle wer'e diseased at the time they were sold and caused the damage claimed by the plaintiff.
The only doubt we entertain about any of the testimony is in regard to the testimony of the witness, Grale. Grale did not purchase his heifer at the time of the sale at which the other witnesses had purchased. He purchased a virgin heifer. The testimony of the experts introduced was to the effect that a virgin heifer was rarely, if ever, afflicted with the disease; that the disease was not transmitted by a bull; that it developed either in the udder or pregnant uterus. That the Hale heifer was not bred until after she was taken from the farm of the defendant. These are our reasons for holding that his evidence was probably too remote. The argument of the defendant in his brief for a rehearing almost convinces us we were in error in holding it to be too remote. The disease might have been contracted by that heifer on the defendant’s farm and remained dormant until she became pregnant. The other grounds presented in the petition for rehearing were - sufficiently considered in our former opinion. The petition for rehearing is in reality a repetition of the arguments contained in appellant’s brief and ably presented in his oral arguments. We adhere to our former opinion.
Rehearing Denied.