Court Opinion

ID: 9685172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:25:20.660418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:03.021476
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing.
In this extended opinion on application for rehearing we desire to correct two inadvertent mistakes appearing in our original opinion.
The name of the attorney who testified in the case is Ira E. Tidwell, and not Irá E. Tisdale.'
Mr. Wagoner’s son testified that he sent his father some money to Tulsa, Oklahoma. The record, therefore, does hot warrant our statement that the son sent his father a check to Tulsa. • ;•
*620In brief on application for rehearing counsel for appellant makes this statement:
“A careful examination of the testimony of L. P. Bradford reveals that he is a pathetic and untrustworthy character. This court gives to the testimony of this pathetic witness both a weight and construction which it does not deserve. The court says that the effect of his testimony was, ‘that at one time a party stood up for the real defendant.’ We respectfully submit that the witness was careful not to say what the court credits him -with saying.”
We do not think that we went outside the record in making the statement to which reference is made.
Mr. Bradford answered the following question in the affirmative:
“While you were working for the Bail Bond Company was there any occasions when Herbert Shouse requested that you go out and request individuals to come into the Jefferson County Court of Misdemeanors, to come and stand up in the court and stand up for some individuals not present?”
He was then asked: “How many times, Mr. Bradford?” He replied: “I contacted three.” Then this question: “Did any of them come to court?” He answered: “I seen one.”
The other insistences to which we have not herein responded were treated in our original opinion. Further elaboration would in effect be a repetition.
The application for rehearing is overruled.