Court Opinion

ID: 9829275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:08:48.617651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.354109
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[7] Appellee’s counsel ardently insists that we have committed error in reversing and remanding this case, on the ground that the trial court refused to permit the jury to take with them in their retirement certain evidence, and cites with confidence rule 62a (149 S. W. x), governing the Courts of Civil Appeals, and the following authorities under said rule: T. & B. V. R. R. Co. v. Voss, 160 S. W. 663; So. Kans. Ry. Co. v. Shinn, 153 S. W. 640; I. & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Walters, 165 S. W. 525; Owens v. State Bank of Bronte, 165 S. W. 798. The last citation is an error. We have carefully read all of the authorities cited, but we fail to find such authorities supporting appellee’s contention, and, so far as we have been able to ascertain, there is no decision by any of the appellate courts of this state which holds that *361a plain violation of a statutory right is harmless error; indeed, we think the authorities cited are rather against appellee’s contention than supporting it. A quotation from, perhaps, the strongest authority presented by appellee in his motion for rehearing will prove this view. In the case of Southern Kansas Railway Company of Texas et al. v. Shinn, 153 S. W. 640, it is to be noted that the appellate court, in passing upon motion for rehearing, used the following language:
“Of course, in no event would this court apply the right where a plain and palpable error had been committed in violation of a statute affecting the substantive rights of a litigant; and, where such a condition is presented, the fundamental law necessarily would overcome the rule” (citing Schuette v. Bishop, 153 S. W. 377).
We think the trial court could have, with as much propriety, refused the jury the privilege of taking with them, in their retirement, the charge of the court, or the pleadings of the parties, or, as to that matter, both. The statute is plain and unmistakable that the documentary evidence was proper matter for the jury to have in its retirement. The appellant asked that the jury be permitted to take such evidence with it in its retirement. The trial court refused appellant’s request, and did not permit the jury to take with it, in its retirement, a paper that the plain letter of the law says it may have.
The ownership of the mules was a closely contested issue in this ease. George Harmon, at the very time of the trial, had a claim pending for damages for these very mules. Such being the case, we are unable to see any force in appellee’s contention that the error was harmless.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.