Court Opinion

ID: 9828838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:47:02.797609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:53.641111
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing, appellee, through his counsel, questions the correctness of the following language contained in the original opinion used in connection with the court’s discussion of appellant’s first assignment, to wit:
“The court approved defendant’s bill of exception complaining of this action -with the following statement in the way of a modification: ‘That plaintiff testified that he knew what money was taken out of the business by defendant and spent for beer.’ ”
Appellee urges that the trial court’s modification of this bill of exception, being No. 2, is in the following language:
“The court admitted this testimony for the purpose of rebutting the defendant’s allegations in his answer, in which he claimed that the paper had failed on account of hard times,” etc.
The record before us, as shown by the transcript, page 9, does not contain the language used by appellee in his motion for rehearing, but does contain the exact language quoted in our original opinion. There is some language used in this motion, to wit, “It would be ridiculous for this court to hold,” etc., that we ascribe rather to the zeal and earnestness of the counsel than to any purpose to be disrespectful to this court. We have carefully considered the motion, and find no reason for changing the conclusions heretofore expressed.
The motion is overruled.