Court Opinion

ID: 9830985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:40:50.631998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.001508
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The statement in the opinion disposing of the appeal that “it appeared from uncontra-dicted testimony that the goggles furnished appellee more than a year before he was injured, as stated above, were broken and useless before he cea-sed to work for appellant in March, 1921, and were left by him in appellant’s possession when he ceased working for it,” is challenged as erroneous because not warranted by the testimony, so far as it was that the goggles were left in appellant’s possession when he quit work in March, 1921. The challenged part of the statement was based on uncontradicted testimony of appellee, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, as follows:
“I had my goggles in the locker when I laid off. When I came back I had my goggles — no; I broke them; I broke my goggles before the lay-off in 1921.”
We thought that the jury had a right to-conclude that the “locker” referred to was one furnished appellee by appellant, that the-goggles referred to were left by appellee in’ that locker when he “laid off,” and that appellant was in possession of the locker, and therefore of the goggles during the three months appellee was laid off. . We still think the conclusions suggested were, fair ones from the testimony set out, and that the statement in the opinion was not unwarranted as claimed by appellant.
We have considered the other contentions presented in the motion, and do not think any of them should be sustained.
The motion is overruled.