Court Opinion

ID: 9828182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:11:34.525863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:45.343433
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In his motion for rehearing counsel for appellee calls our attention to an inaccurate statement in our opinion heretofore filed in this cause. We say in our opinion:
“The undisputed evidence shows that the deputy got plaintiff over the telephone about 6 o’clock on the afternoon of January 24, 1919, and plaintiff at once sent deputies from his office to go with McFadden and make the arrest. After these officers reached League City there was some delay in obtaining a warrant of arrest from a justice of the peace, and Dr. Had-ley had left the home of his father before the officers arrived there, and they were unable to apprehend him.”
The record fails to sustain the statement that the undisputed evidence shows that “after these officers reached League City there was some delay in obtaining a warrant of arrest from a justice of the peace.” On the contrary, Deputy McFadden testified that he had talked to the justice of the peace at League City about the desirability of having a warrant for Dr. Hadley’s arrest before he telephoned the appellee, but did not ask the justice to issue the warrant, and there is no evidence that any warrant was sought after the. deputy sent by the appel-lee arrived at League City.
The erroneous statement in the opinion above quoted is, we think, wholly .immaterial, but our desire to be accurate in our statements of the evidence prompts us to make this correction.
After giving the motion for rehearing due consideration, we feel constrained to adhere to the conclusion expressed in our former opinion, and refuse the motion.