Court Opinion

ID: 9833934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:09:48.582437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:09.401540
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Bill of exception No. 16, taken by the defendant to the argument of Mr. Brewster, counsel for plaintiffs, and discussed in our opinion on original hearing, shows that one of the objections made thereto was that “such argument was outside of the record, highly inflammatory and prejudicial to the rights of the defendant and should not have been permitted.” Our opinion contains the erroneous statement that that was not one of the grounds of objection, and the erroneous recital in our original opinion is herewith withdrawn. By way of explanation, we will add that the certificate of the trial judge approving the bill contained this statement by way of qualification:
“The court does not certify to the following language in the foregoing bill of exception:
‘“Such argument is outside of the record,' highly inflammatory and prejudicial to the rights of the defendant, and should not have been permitted.’
“The Court was of the opinion that such argument was proper inference and deduction from the evidence in this case.”
Upon first impression, we concluded that that statement of the judge had the effect of eliminating from the bill that ground of objection; but we are now convinced that it had no other meaning than that the court concluded that the argument was not outside the record, but- was a proper inference and deduction from the evidence. '
However, we believe that the argument was a permissible inference to be drawn from the evidence and therefore the court did not err in overruling the objection.
After due consideration of the motion for rehearing, we adhere to all other conclusions embodied in our original opinion, and therefore the motion is overruled.