Court Opinion

ID: 9831009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:42:10.697067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:29.333497
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
We see no reason to change our conclusions as announced in our original opinion, and appellee’s motion for rehearing .will therefore be overruled; but appellant by motion duly filed suggests that our opinion on original hearing, to the effect tha't “there was no error of the court either in giving or refusing charges,” be made more specific in order that the trial court on another trial may not be led into error. It is particularly insisted that the court erred in submitting special issue No. 1 to the jury, for the reason that it was upon the weight of the evidence; but the objection to the charge as presented in the • assignment is wholly to the effect that, the charge was erroneous on the ground that there was “no evidence that G. O. Sikes converted the goods in question.”
There is no suggestion in the assignment, nor in any proposition following it, that there was “no evidence” tending to show that Olga Sikes converted the property. O. O. Sikes did not appeal, and on original hearing, and now, we do not deem it material to determine whether or not, as against O. O. Sikes, there was any error in the charge. By stating, however, that there was no error in the charge, we meant there was no prejudicial error presented, and we will assume that upon -another trial the court’s charge will be adapted to the evidence as then presented, and that, if need be, the criticism of the charge made in appellant’s second assignment of error will be avoided. So, too, do we assume that, should the circumstance shown upon another trial warrant it, the court will give, if requested, an appropriate instruction defining the word “conversion.”
Save as above expressed, the motion will be overruled.