Court Opinion

ID: 9831071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:46:35.431757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:30.219842
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The appellant, Ellerd, in this cause complains that this court erred in failing to pass upon his first assignment of error, stating as one of his reasons that witness Walter Day, whose testimony was rejected by the trial court, would have testified, if permitted by the court, in substance that he had no absolute knowledge of the business relations existing between Winn and Campfield, “or that he knew in a general way that they were partners.” In referring' to the appellant’s brief on this subject, and applicable to this assignment, the statement under the assignment is as follows: “The witness Walter Day testified that he had been acquainted with the witness E. E. Winn and the plaintiff Campfield for the past five years, and that he knew in a general way the business which the said E. E. Winn looked after for the plaintiff Campfield; that he did not remember any certain transaction, but knew in a general way. Upon objection by plaintiff’s counsel, this testimony was by the court excluded from the jury. Defendant’s Bill of Exception No. 3, Tr. pp. 35, 36.”
The above statement in appellant’s brief of the offered testimony of Walter Day is a correct reflection of defendant’s bill of exception No. 3, referred to herein by appellant, and his bill of exception No. 3 has no reference whatever to any testimony of Day “that he knew in a general way that they were partners.” The statement of the testimony in bill of exception No. 3, made by appellant in his original brief, and the bill of exceptions in the transcript sustaining it, present a character of testimony we thought was plainly inadmissible and that it was unnecessary to discuss it.
In re-reading appellant’s brief especially applicable to this assignment, we do not find a single reference offered in the assignment, the proposition, the statement, or the “remarks,” of any offered testimony of Walter Day “that he knew in a general way that they (Winn and Campfield) were partners.” We find such a statement, in reading the record, in another and different bill of exceptions, which is not assigned; but we are not saying that we would consider such testimony would have effected a reversal of the case, but simply state that appellant has not complained that the court rejected such testimony, nor was it called to the attention of this court in any way, and defendant’s bill of exception No. 3 supporting the assignment does not raise such a question.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.