Court Opinion

ID: 9830439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:12:57.65643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:22.531579
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
 One of the grounds of the motion for rehearing insists that we are in error in holding that “the record does not show that appellant presented any objections to the court’s charge to the jury pointing out any error, and especially the errors complained of.” The statement had reference to suggested errors to the submission of issues 4 and 5. The error assigned to the submission of issues 4 and 5 is that the “interrogatories authorized the jury to decide the said questions in favor of the plaintiff regardless of the question as to where said oats had been bought, and should have been limited to oats purchased by the plaintiff of the defendant.” We think appellant has not fully understood the purport of special issues Nos. 4 and 5, and confused the issues by the assignments. We understand the issues were to have the jury find whether the two horses died and one injured from eating oats containing tacks, nails, pebbles, and other trash, as separate and distinct issues of fact, and regardless of where the oats came from; in other words, was eating such things the cause of the death of two horses and injury to one? The burden was on plaintiff to show that the death and injury of the horses was caused from eating the foreign substances stated. Defendant contested the issue that the horses died from eating the foreign substances named. The issue as to whether defendant sold to plaintiff oats containing such substances was a separate and distinct issue. It was best not. to confuse the two material issues in one paragraph of the charge.
The motion is overruled.