Court Opinion

ID: 9864564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 14:01:47.483687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:16.534208
License: Public Domain

THE COURT.
The appellant has filed a petition for a. rehearing.  The point that the trial judge who heard the motion for a new trial had no jurisdiction to hear the motion was not presented in the opening brief of the appellant and it was therefore waived. (Hihn v. Courtis, 31 Cal. 398; Webber v. Clark, 74 Cal. 11, 13 [15 Pac. 431]; Bacigalupi v. Phoenix Bldg. etc. Co., 14 Cal. App. 632 [112 Pac. 892].)
In the opinion heretofore filed a paragraph on pages 6 and 7 is devoted to a consideration of the claim of the appellant that certain misconduct on the part of the plaintiff’s attorney occurred during the trial which constituted prejudicial error and the court adverts to the fact that if such matters were contained in the bill of exceptions, the location of the objectionable matters was not stated in the appellant’s opening brief. We repeat the statement. It was also stated by the court that the acts and conduct of counsel in presenting evidence, the objections thereto, and the rulings thereon, should be contained in the bill of exceptions and not in affidavits if an appellant would have the same considered by the court. The appellant also questions the correctness of that statement, but we are not inclined to depart therefrom. No misconduct occurring outside of the courtroom, nor occurring at a time when the court was not actually in session, is charged in any form or manner. But, if we concede for the purpose of argument that the record correctly sets forth the point, still the ruling must be the same.  The full measure of the appellant’s point is that the plaintiff’s attorney made an offer to prove that the appellant did, without any authority, sign the plaintiff’s name to a mortgage written for the sum of $75,000; and that *773the offer was made at a time when the defendant was presenting his defense and when it would have been irregular for the plaintiff to introduce any evidence; and that the offer was repeated several times. But the offer was not accepted. The proof was not made and the matter then stands thus: "Will it be assumed on appeal that the trial judge, sitting without a jury in the trial of a civil action, allowed his mind to be prejudiced by the suggestions of fact contained in questions or offers of proof to which objections were sustained ? It is patent that such is not the rule.
The last point made reiterates the contention that the trial court erred in refusing the appellant permission to file 'a cross-complaint asking that gifts of the alleged value of $25,000 should be canceled on the ground that they were obtained by reason of false representations. Our former opinion fully covered the subject.
A rehearing is denied.
Appellant’s petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 23, 1925.
All the Justices concurred, except Seawell, J., and Houser, J., pro tem., who, deeming themselves disqualified, did not participate.