Court Opinion

ID: 9865647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:16:59.3235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:19.452734
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.
Counsel for defendant contend in their motion for rehearing as to the ruling in headnote 2 (e) and the corresponding division of *758the opinion, that as a matter of fact the jury did not know that the vehicles in which they were transported to the premises viewed by them were furnished by the defendant. They concede that if the facts as recited in the opinion are the true facts this court should grant a new trial. Ground 4 of the amended motion complains of the action of the court in permitting the jury to view the premises, the jury being “transported and conveyed to the premises in dispute in three taxicabs furnished, and at the expense of defendant,” and assigns error thereon for several reasons set out. Paragraph (b) is as follows: “Because said jury was transported to the property in dispute in taxicabs hired by the defendant company, which was known by the jury, and movant contends was influenced thereby in favor of the defendant.” The recitals of fact in the motion are approved as true and correct by the trial judge. We are bound by the record and can not consider a contention based upon alleged facts at variance with those approved by the court. Paulk v. Creech, 8 Ga. App. 738 (4) (70 S. E. 145). Under these circumstances the motion for rehearing is denied.