Court Opinion

ID: 9832204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:42:38.328128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:44.129645
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[6] This cause originally was reversed because the court’s charge assumed as a fact matter proven only by the uncorroborated testimony of Eriar. The authorities firmly establish the rule that an instruction is erroneous which assumes as a fact matter which has been proven only by the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness, but upon further consideration the conclusion has been reached that it should not be regarded as a rule of such absolute and universal application as in all instances of its violation to require reversal. City of San Antonio v. Rollins, 127 S. W. 1166, 1173; Ry. Co. v. Stone, 125 S. W. 587.
From a consideration of the entire record, it is apparent that no issue was made upon the trial respecting the matters testified to by Friar and assumed as true in the court’s charge, and in such case it would seem that the error of the court is not material, and shóuld not be treated as ground for reversal; especially so in view of the provisions of rule 62a (149 S. W. x), recently adopted.
Accordingly, the motion for rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the lower court affirmed.