Court Opinion

ID: 9832880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:16:40.099923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:54.842864
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[8-10] On a former day of the present term of this court we affirmed the judgment of the trial court herein under the provisions of Rule 62a (149 S. W. x). In this we think that we were in error. The Constitution of this state (Article 5, § 25) and also R. S. art. 1523, provide that:
“The Supreme Court shall have power to make and establish” and enforce all necessary “rules of” practice and “procedure, not inconsistent with the laws of this state, for the government of said court and the other courts of this state, to expedite the dispatch of business” in said courts.
Rules which the Supreme Court has power to make should be given the force of law, but a rulé in contravention of a statute is void. Railway Co. v. Beasley (Sup.) 155 S. W. 187; Railway Co. v. Wilkinson, 152 S. W. 203; Schuette v. Bishop, 153 S. W. 379; Railway Co. v. Galloway, 154 S. W. 653; Rowson v. McKinney, 154 S. W. 604; Conn v. Rosamond, 161 S. W. 76; Johnson v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 429, 93 S. W. 735; People v. McClellan, 31 Cal. 103; Main v. Lynch, 54 Md. 658; Purcell v. Railway Co., 50 Mo. 506; State v. Posey, 17 La. Ann. 252, 87 Am. Dec. 525; Suckley v. Rotchford, 12 Grat. (Va.) 62, 65 Am. Dec. 240.
Where a rule of procedure, whether prescribed by statute or by the Supreme Court, is merely directory, the discretion of the' court ought always to be exercised in behalf of substantial justice; but, when the Legislature has made a mandatory rule of procedure, there is no room left for discretion, and it is the business of courts to enforce the law as it is written. There is no way for an appellate court to enforce the mandate of the law, except to reverse a case when such mandate has been disobeyed.
In our original opinion herein we said, “Appellant does not complain of the charge given.” It did not have an opportunity to object to the charge in the manner prescribed by statute, and “all objections not so made and presented shall be considered as waived.” Articles 1970 and 1971, R. S. It would have been useless for appellant to assign error upon the charge after the same had been read to the jury, as such assignments could not have been considered on appeal.
For the reason that the trial court did not comply with the statute with reference to the preparation and reading the charge before argument to the jury, the appellant’s motion for a rehearing is granted, and the judgment of the trial court herein is reversed, and this cause is remanded for a new trial.
Motion granted. Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.