Court Opinion

ID: 9827207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:16:49.874121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:26.255827
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
[3] In the original opinion we stated that Dr. Lea had testified that appellee was not drunk, but the using of Dr. Lea’s name in that connection was an oversight and error. He did not so testify.
Those who testified, in substance, that ap-pellee was not drunk were appellee himself, J. T. O’Toole, Miss Edwards, and Boaz-man. O’Toole said:
“In my judgment, he was not drunk. He came in the saloon and got a glass of beer from me, and I asked him to take, another, and he said, ‘No,’ that he was going home. He didn’t seem to be drunk at that time.”
. And .on cross-examination this witness said:
“I am sure he was sober; I can tell when a man walks up to me whether he is drunk or sober.”
Miss Edwards said:
“He acted to me as if he was perfectly sober, but very much hurt.”
Mr. Boazman said:
“I took Charlie Anderson in the house. He impressed me as being perfectly sober; his face was right next to mine, and I did not smell anything.”
As opposed to these witnesses, Poe, Martinez, Edge, Dr. Lea, Hutzler, and a man by the name of Brady testified that appellee was' drunk. Brady says:
“I did not ask him any questions or speak to him; he may have been drinking some. A good many people around there said he was drinking and something was the matter with him.”
And on cross-examination said:
“ * * * He was a tottery, a little wobbly, looked like. He staggered and wobbled along a little bit when he crossed the ditch.”
The other witnesses mentioned said Anderson was drunk.
In this state of the evidence on that matter we would not disturb the finding of the trial court, who heard and saw the witnesses.
The evidence as to whether there were or were not lights at the place was equally conflicting, and, for the reason above, this court would not disturb the trial court’s finding.
The motion is overruled.