Court Opinion

ID: 9824565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:52:59.051191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:50.669725
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
We are taken to task, upon application for rehearing, for not considering the appellant’s .second assignment of error and for the statement, in the original opinion, that we find no .such ruling as the one assigned.
The assignment second reads as follows:
“The trial court erred in sustaining defendant’s objection to the following question:
“ ‘And what did he say to you, if anything?’ •Trans, p. 28.”
It will be noted that as a part of the assignment the page of the transcript upon which the ruling appears is designated as “28.” We looked in vain for any such ruling ■on page 28 as designated in the second assignment of error. There is no such ruling on page 28. There is such a ruling on page S, but not on page 28, as set ou£ in the assignment of error, so the record has not been misstated.
 Waiving, however, the inaccuracy of the assignment of error as to the page of the transcript, we are of the opinion that the trial court did not commit reversible error in this ruling. In the first place, the question is so general and far-reaching that the defendant may have said much that was not relevant, and there was no statement or explanation by counsel as to what he expected to show. Flowers v. Graves, 220 Ala. 445, 125. So. 659; Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Pratt City Sav. Bank, 220 Ala. 683, 127 So. 500. Second, the witness was subsequently permitted to testify what Dollar said to him in reference to the appellant.
The application for rehearing is denied.
THOMAS, BROWN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.