Court Opinion

ID: 9834030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:14:44.365325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:11.033822
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In our original opinion we stated: “He [Willie Stewart] further testified that he knew of no one else who had worked at the same or similar work, in or near the place where he was working, for as much as a year next prior to the time he received his injury. This testimony was objected to and the objection sustained, but only after the testimony was before the jury, and the same was never stricken from the record.”
Appellee, in his reply to appellant’s motion for rehearing, calls our attention to the fact that the above statement is incorrect. We have examined the statement of facts and find that the following testimony was given by Willie Stewart:
“Q. Do you know of any other man that worked for Zachry, or did the class of work that you were doing, that worked as' much as two hundred and twenty-five days a year preceding this accident? A. No, sir.
“Q. Did you work for Zachry on that job about as much as any other man that worked for them? A. Yes, sir.”
Then follows an objection by counsel for appellant. It therefore is clear that our statement in the original opinion is incorrect, and that the question was not objected to, nor was an objection sustained by the court. We therefore withdraw this statement in our original opinion and find that the testimony was in the record without objection.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing has been carefully considered, and,- finding the same without merit, it is accordingly overruled.