Court Opinion

ID: 9833482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:45:10.558896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.379029
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION EOR REHEARING.
December 9, 1908.
The judgment in this case was affirmed on a previous day of the present term.
Appellant’s suggestion why the rehearing should be granted is based on the alleged rejection of testimony set out in bill of exceptions Ho. 5. The motion for a new trial asserts that the court erred in not permitting appellant to prove by the witness Johnson that the one dollar and fifty cents paid to Bolin by defendant Reno was for a debt that Holin owed defendant and not for a bottle of whisky as urged by the State. Had the court rejected this testimony it would have been rather a serious question, but an examination of the record fails to disclose that the testimony was offered and rejected, and there is no such bill of exceptions in the record as Ho. 5.
Another ground refers to bill of exceptions Ho. 6, and to some testimony which is alleged in the motion for rehearing as being contained in said bill of exceptions Ho. 6. An inspection of the record fails to disclose that there is such 'a bill of exceptions in the record. In fact there was but one bill of exceptions as far as the record is concerned sought to be reserved in the court below, and this was rejected by the trial judge as stated in the original opinion.
For the reasons stated, the motion for rehearing is overruled.

Overruled.