Court Opinion

ID: 9681767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:56:15.42833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:35.774258
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
By their second point, appellants contend the trial court erred in failing to grant them a trial de novo and in admitting and considering evidence on the plea in abatement. We find no merit in this point. Appellants failed to introduce evidence on the controlling issue made by the pleadings in the County Court and, therefore, the District Court acquired , no'jurisdiction of this appeal. If the District Court acquired no jurisdiction it then follows that appellants were not entitled to a trial de novo in that court.
By their third point, appellants assert the ■trial court erred in not permitting appellants to interrogate the County Judge on whether or not he decided against appellants’ contention as a matter of law. Upon the hearing of the plea in abatement and while the Honorable Walter Pope, Jr., the Judge of the County Court before whom this case was tried, was testifying as a witness, the following occurred:
“Q. (By Mr. Overshiner) But did you ever decide against the plaintiffs on the law in that case or not?
“Mr. Abbott: Your Honor, that’s immaterial.
“Mr. Overshiner: It is highly relevant, Your Honor.
“The Court: The judgment speaks for itself here. In other words, you have got a judgment here.
“Mr. Overshiner: That’s quite correct. I will withdraw the question.
“Mr. Overshiner: That’s all.”
It will be observed that the record does not show what the answer of the County *129Judge would have been to the question propounded. The record further shows that Counsel for appellants withdrew the question and did not insist upon an answer thereto. He did not except to the court’s ruling in refusing to allow the witness to answer the question. The law is well settled that a bill of exception to the exclusion of evidence must show what the answer of the witness would have been to the question propounded. We have no way of knowing what the answer of the witness would have been. Texas Lloyds v. Laird, Tex.Civ.App., 209 S.W.2d 937; Johnson v. Poe, Tex.Civ.App., 210 S.W.2d 264; Bowles v. Bourdon, Tex.Civ.App., 213 S.W.2d 713, affirmed 148 Tex. 1, 219 S.W.2d 779, 13 A.L.R. 2d 1; Texas Associates, Inc., v. Joe Bland Const. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 222 S.W.2d 413; Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 372. Furthermore, Counsel for appellants waived the error, if any, by failing to except to the ruling of the court and by withdrawing his question. This point is overruled.
By their fifth point, appellants complain of the action of the trial court in compelling one of appellants’ attorneys to answer a question as to what transpired in the County Court and contend said witness was privileged as to whether or not he would testify to such occurrence. Upon a trial of the case, Hon. George Overshiner, an attorney for appellants, was called as a witness by appellees and testified, over his objection, that no evidence or testimony from witnesses was offered upon the trial of the case in the County Court. Appellants have cited no authority and we know of none which holds that the above evidence was privileged. The attorney was called upon to testify as to what occurred in the trial of the case in the County Court. We know of no rule of law which holds that the information sought to be elicited from the witness was privileged, therefore, this point is overruled.
We have again carefully considered all points raised by the appellants and we find no merit in any of them and they are overruled.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.