Court Opinion

ID: 9827946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:57:11.032867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:39.758993
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
This cause has been given painstaking consideration'on a rehearing, upon written arguments from both sides, that for the appellees having been invited by this court in reply to those ably urged by the appellants. After such a full review, the court is constrained to adhere to its former disposition, after correcting an error in recital appearing in its original opinion, to which appellants’ counsel have helpfully called attention.
In the concluding paragraph on page 11 of that opinion, this language is found:
“As to No. (1), it will be noted that the objection interposed was to counsel’s statement that the deputy sheriff, when accosted by him just before this trial about his investigation of this accident, ‘would not show it (his typewritten statement of his investigation) to me, and asked me which side I was on.’ ”
That recitation should have been as follows :
“As to No. (1), it will he noted that the objection interposed was to counsel’s statement that the deputy sheriff, when accosted by him just before this trial about his investigation of the accident, ‘would not show it (his original penciled statement of his investigation) to me, and asked me which side I was on.’ ”
That same inaccuracy recurs in the last line of such page 11, as follows:
“The officer’s admitted testimony on these details otherwise was that he had a set of typewritten records on this accident at that time, and that when so asked by appellee’s counsel if he had lost them, he replied he did not then have them with him.”
When corrected, it reads this way:
“The officer’s admitted testimony on these details otherwise was that he had .had a set of original penciled records on this accident at that time, and that when so asked by appellees’ counsel if he had lost them, he replied that he did not have them with him.”
This court is unable to give such important meaning to this corrected statement as appellants so earnestly do; they appear to consider it as going to the heart of the whole controversy, whereas to this court it seems to be no more than a slight inaccuracy, which still does not undermine the conclusion formerly announced upon that particular one of the challenged arguments of appellees’ counsel; as there recited, this officer, in the circumstances formerly set out, did in fact go before a jury with his “original penciled statement” of the investigation he had made on the ground of the accident, and was permitted to give his full testimony back and forth on all phases of it. It is, therefore, a non sequi-tur, it is thought., to contend, as appellants still do, that such small departure of counsel in his zeal for his client, as to have said the officer would not show him his “typewritten” statement of his investigation, instead of saying he would not show him his “original penciled” statement, changed the effect of that argument from a mere misquotation of the evidence to a prejudicial effort to then testify himself before the jury.
The inaccuracies in other respects contended for by -the appellants are not considered to be well taken.
Under the belief that the original decision was correct, the motion will be overruled.
Overruled.