Court Opinion

ID: 9833476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:45:00.038104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:03.321377
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
By additional citation of authorities and argument, the appellant contends that this court erred in not reversing the judgment because the trial court permitted W. H. Hague, county and district clerk, and P. M. Williams, county commissioner when the contract was made with appellant, to testify over appellant’s objection that they had never seen or observed any of the work done by appellant that was of any benefit to the county.
It is conceded that the West Audit Company made no written reports to the county, and Hague testified that while the audit was in progress no one of the auditors suggested any changes that should be made in his record; that he never heard any of them tell the commissioners’ court about anything they had found in the records or anything about the actual condition of the records of the county. He states he asked one of them how they were coming on with the records, or how they found them, and that they just said they were coming along all right. This question was then asked: “Have you ever as District and County Clerk from that day to this observed or seen anything of the work done by this company that has been of any benefit to this county that you know of?”
The appellant objected because the question called for a conclusion and an opinion of the witness. The objection was overruled, and the witness answered that he could not recall anything. The testimony seems to be negative in its character, and, since he had seen no written report and had heard no verbal report, he could not have truthfully answered it otherwise. It was not a conclusion or an opinion, but was the plain statement of a fact, and the only objection which could have been properly urged was as to its weight rather than to its admissibility. No error is shown by the ruling of the court.
Commissioner Williams testified that he had not personally talked with any of the auditors before they commenced work; that he was in and out of the courthouse very little prior to the time the contract was made with appellant; that he had not been furnished with any information, directly or indirectly, as to anything the audit company had found in the records; that he did not remember that the audit company made any report to the commissioners on December 13th as to what they had found in the records, and, after the courthouse burned, none of the auditors undertook to tell the commissioners what they had found in the record or to make a report of their audit. He was then asked this question: “Do you know of your own information that ha's come to you in any way of any act or thing that was done by the West Audit Company or by any of them or any information furnished to any officers of this county that was of any benefit to Yoakum County?”
The same objection which had been urged to the testimony of Hague was interposed and overruled by the court. What we have just said with reference to the testimony of Hague also disposes of the contention with reference to Williams.
We have reviewed the record and the opinion in the light of the motion and argument for rehearing, and, being convinced that a proper judgment has been rendered, the motion is overruled.