Court Opinion

ID: 9825374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:48:01.329542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:18.891984
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The first submission in this case was had on January 15, 1931, and the court on March 24, 1931, rendered a judgment of affirmance. The record as first submitted did not contain the oral charge óf the trial court. At the earnest solicitation of appellant’s counsel, this court made an order on April 10, 1931, as follows: “April 10, 1931, opinion withdrawn. Cause restored to docket. Certiorari awarded and passed to call of 7th Div. Per Curiam.”
*494In response to the certiorari, the clerk of the circuit court in which this case was originally tried sent up the oral charge of the trial court which was received and filed here on April 15, 1931. The cause was thereafter here “submitted on briefs” on May 28, 1931.
On August 4, 1931, the ease was again affirmed, and application for rehearing was filed August 18, 1931. In said application for rehearing it is strenuously insisted that the exceptions reserved to the court’s oral charge were properly taken and that reversible error prevailed in this connection. In the opinion last rendered in this court it was held that “these attempted exceptions [to the oral charge] do not meet the required rule, they being descriptive only, and not the reservation of an exception to a particular exactly designated statement of the judge.” Referring again to the oral charge on page 7 of the amendment to the record as a result of the certiorari, we find that the exceptions to the oral charge were attempted as first stated in the opinion rendered, and were not reserved in the manner now insisted upon by counsel for appellant. As stated in the opinion, these attempted reservations of exceptions do not meet the required rule, and, as presented, we are without authority to consider. them.
Application for rehearing overruled.