Court Opinion

ID: 9831531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:10:04.277537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:35.582358
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellant criticizes our finding that “the evidence does not show that any of the water that would, following its natural outlet, have gone into Neches street, was diverted by appellee’s ditches into Trinity street,” and in support of this criticism quotes extensively from the evidence of his witnesses, especially the engineers, Sherer and Omohun-dro. This court gave the most careful consideration to all the evidence given by appellant in his brief, and in addition thereto reviewed the entire statement of facts. We could find then, and find now, no evidence in the record contradicting the conclusion we have made. In his motion for rehearing, appellant, after quoting the evidence of the witnesses on this issue, says:
“To understand the full meaning of the above testimony of the witness Omohundro, it will be remembered that he was testifying with reference to the map shown on page 94 of the statement of facts, etc.”
It is clear from the testimony that the witness was testifying from the maps. Eor instance, he said:
“When those little ditches drained that water from between those tracks it drains to the north and south and goes into this ditch right here.”
And, “With the condition of that ditch like that.”
And, “With that ditch cut that way,” etc.
The testimony of all the witnesses in reference to the flow of water must have been given in reference to the maps, and is entirely unintelligible to this court. Since we have no way of knowing what ditch, as shown on the map, appellant’s witnesses were testify*483ing about, and when they use'- such words as “here” and “there” and other descriptive terms, that the court and jury could have understood, when placed in the record for our consideration they mean nothing to us. ■ When a ease is being developed by means of maps and plats and the parties are seeking to make a record for review by an appellate court, the evidence must be intelligible and in such condition that when read we can apply it to the maps as found in the record and understand what the witnesses are trying to say. In this case that was not done. On the record before us we cannot find any evidence that can be applied to the maps in the record showing that water was diverted from one side of the watershed to the other. In San Jacinto Rice Co. v. Ulrich, 214 S. W. 777, the record was in the condition we find this one, and in reference thereto we said:
“A reading of the statement of facts shows that the witnesses were testifying from maps and plats before them, and in describing drainage ditches and laterals and fences and levees they answered evidently by referring to the map and saying ‘this ditch here’ and ‘this fence here’ and ‘this lateral here’ and ‘this rice here.’ While this testimony was perfectly plain to the jury, and they were able to follow it, it has no meaning at all to this court.”
We think the record fully sustains us in all the conclusions of fact we have made.
The motion for rehearing is in all things overruled.