DocketNumber: Nos. 1460, 1461.
Citation Numbers: 163 So. 428
Judges: LE BLANC, Judge.
Filed Date: 10/3/1935
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/11/2023
The principal complaint in the application for a rehearing herein is that in the concurring opinion, the report of the handwriting expert which bears a filing mark of the same date as that on which the re-conventional demand was being tried, was presumed to have been offered in evidence, when, as a matter of fact, the filing mark of the clerk does not show that it was filed "in evidence."
The circumstances under which we presumed that the report was in evidence are fully set out in the concurring opinion, and it is unnecessary to repeat them here. We believe that the presumption indulged in under those circumstances is far more reasonable than would be one that the filing of the report had been stealthily or surreptitiously procured by counsel for defendant, the only other way in which it could have found its place in the record. Knowing these attorneys as we do we hesitate not to state that we do not for a moment believe that they would lend themselves to any such practice.
Aside from all of this, however, the fact remains that the expert called on to examine the questioned documents in these cases, after having made a scientific investigation, "stated the results thereof" as he had to under the provisions of the expert witness act (Act No.
We find no merit in the applications for rehearing, and they both will be refused.