Court Opinion

ID: 9828077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:05:12.308726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:43.187210
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
By inadvertence there was a failure to pass upon appellant’s fifth assignment in the original opinion rendered herein.
It complains of testimony of plaintiff as to certain statements made to him by McKenzie. A conspiracy between McKenzie and Loftus was pleaded, and the fact of its existence raised by the evidence. Therefore the statements made by McKenzie relating to the alleged cause of the actors ceasing work was admissible; but, as to the remaining statements made by him, they were improper and inadmissible upon any theory.
The position originally assumed regarding the eleventh, thirteenth, and fourteenth assignments is adhered to. As an original proposition, we would not be disposed to regard the testimony referred to in the assignments as admissible, but in the two cases cited, it has been otherwise decided, and we are not disposed to dissent from the conclusion there reached. The assignments are overruled solely upon the authorities cited.
Appellant in his motion for rehearing requests that we indicate specifically the testimony regarded as admissible in the numerous assignments of error discussed in the original opinion, and that which is deemed inadmissible. To do so would protract the opinion to a wholly unreasonable length, and we see no necessity for so doing, since the trial court should readily be able to determine the irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent testimony as distinguished from that which is relevant, material, and competent.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.