Court Opinion

ID: 9832370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:51:51.674056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:46.175591
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant contends that we were in error in finding that appellant used the following language of and concerning the appellee: “No, G-d- you, you are not going to arrest Martin.”
We were in error in the use of this language, but the same was not a material finding to our opinion, as is shown by the opinion. He did curse Medo Johnson in the presence and hearing of the officers, and he did say to the officers: “No, G-d- it, you are not going to arrest Martin.”
One witness did testify that—
“He (meaning Hollingsworth) did not arrest him then because he would not leave the gate, but because he was cursing so bad.”
Hollingsworth testified:
“He just got between Martin and the ear as if he was not going to let him get in. Chris was cursing and talking loud at the time, and 1 just tapped him on the shoulder and told him I was going to take him to town too.”
With this correction of our findings of fact we are of the opinion that we have correctly decided this case, and the motion is overruled.