Court Opinion

ID: 9790652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:56:54.309091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:30.728340
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
*214OPINION
Mr. Justice Parker
delivered the opinion of the court.
The Riverton Uranium Corporation in its application for rehearing concedes that in the absence of a showing to the contrary a public officer is presumed to have performed a duty imposed upon him by law but urges the existence in the present case of uncontradict-ed testimony refuting the presumption that the clerk mailed the order. No such testimony is pointed out, and a reference to the record shows that the only testimony on the subject is that of G. L. Spence. His statements, therefore, are important in the consideration of the application for rehearing.
At one time on direct examination Mr. Spence said, “The order of November 9th was never received.” However, with relation to this on cross-examination he stated:
“I can’t swear to this Court that I didn’t [receive a copy of the November 9th order]. I can only swear to this Court that I haven’t a copy of it in my possession * *
Later Mr. Spence in purporting to ask himself questions by way of redirect examination avoided any *215statement relating to the mailing of the order as provided by statute but instead approached the matter solely from the standpoint of the knowledge which he had, saying, “I am willing to represent that we had no actual knowledge of the setting of this matter on December 6th, 1956.”
Since the law presumes that the clerk mailed a copy of the order to the Riverton Uranium Corporation and such presumption stands unrebutted, the case must be resolved on that basis. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing must be denied.
Denied.