Court Opinion

ID: 9685078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:22:43.844682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.171010
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is mainly concerned with *19Bills of Exception Nos. 1 and 3 relative to the introduction of “State’s Exhibits 53, 54 or 55,” the burden of said objection being the claimed error in our original opinion wherein it is stated:
“The State offered in evidence memoranda which appellant had delivered to Fry, a public accountant, from which the accountant was to prepare appellant’s income tax returns for the years 1947 and 1948. Some of the handwriting thereon was identified as being that of appellant.”
This statement is complained of because it is alleged that the testimony of Mr. Fry, the public accountant, never did identify Mr. Braley (the appellant) as having delivered this memoranda to him. We quote from the testimony of Mr. Fry as follows:
“I know the defendant, Lem Braley. I have known him about three years, I would say. I have been employed by the defendant Lem Braley in my capacity as a public accountant, for the preparation of income tax returns. Mr. Braley has been personally in my office. I prepared an income tax return for Lem Braley for the year 1948. Mr. Braley came in person to my office for that purpose. He brought with him a memorandum containing facts, figures, and accounting data to present to me at that time.”
* * * *
“As to whether he personally brought that document identified as State’s Exhibit 53 to me, I will answer that he either brought it up there and handed it to me, or left it for me, and I, from that, prepared the return.”
It will be seen therefrom that in the first quotation the witness made the statement that this memoranda was brought to his office by Mr. Braley in person, whereas in the second excerpt above he said that it was either brought up by Mr. Braley or left it for him and that he prepared the return. The return that he prepared sets out many items, some of which had been traced as having been expenses upon the part of Mr. Braley.
Practically the same testimony is evident relative to the income tax return of Mr. Braley for the previous year, and much of it evidences similar expenses and income as that for the year 1948.
We do not think any serious matter is evidenced by the fact *20that the jury, as well as this court, accepted the first statement of the accountant above quoted rather than leaving the same in doubt as to who brought these figures and facts to the public accountant and from which figures it seems Mr. Braley’s income tax returns for the years 1947 and 1948 were prepared and accepted by him.
We think this case has been properly disposed of on the original hearing, and the motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.