Court Opinion

ID: 9831766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:20:45.472808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.765016
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[3] It seems to be conceded in the motion for rehearing that the conversation condemned in our original opinion was as to appellant hearsay and inadmissible as corroborative of Wingo’s testimony to the effect that he delivered the bond to Sneed for the purpose only of ascertaining the solvency of additional sureties, but it is insisted that it was res gestee and made competent, or at least harmless, because of appellee Baldwin’s testimony that when he went to see 'Sneed he said: “I signed that bond with the understanding that Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Todd would sign that bond. ‘Well,’ he (Sneed) says, T understand that too.’ ” No other witness so testified, and the previous conversation between Wingo and Baldwin does not appear to have been -so closely related to the conversations between Sneed and Wingo or Baldwin and Sneed as to bring it within the rule of res gestse. It was otherwise very clearly incompetent, for the conversation between Wingo and Baldwin could no more constitute legal corroboration of Baldwin’s testimony as to what transpired between him •and Sneed than it could be used to corroborate Wingo’s testimony. The necessary effect ■of the hearsay conversation condemned was a tendency to corroborate other testimony, and that it tends to corroborate Baldwin as well as Wingo but emphasizes the error of its admission.
We think the motion for rehearing must be overruled, and it is so ordered.