On Motion for Rehearing.
The statement in the opinion disposing of the appeal that if paragraph 2 of the court’s charge was erroneous as specified in an objection made to it, the error was one of omission of which’ appellant had no right to complain, because it did not seek to supply the omission by requesting a special charge covering it, should be considered in connection with the dictum of the Supreme Court to the contrary in Railway Co. v. Conley, 260 S. W. 561, cited in the motion. The court in that case held that the error complained of in the instruction it was considering was an affirmative one, but plainly indicated the ruling would not have been different if it had appeared to be one of omission only.
The motion is overruled,