CONNER v. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DIST. et al.
In denying the petition for rehearing herein, it may be said that in our opinion the state of the evidence in the case is such that the refusal of the trial court to give the two instructions set out in appellant's petition did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and consequently in no event would such refusal constitute grounds for reversal of the judgment. Const. Cal., art. 6, § 41/212. Moreover, the suggestion that the refusal to give these two instructions was error is made for the first time in the petition for rehearing, and it has been repeatedly declared that a rehearing will not be granted under such circumstances. Estate of Edwards, 126 Cal. App. 152, 14 P.(2d) 318, 15 P.(2d) 194; Mann v. Brison, 120 Cal. App. 450, 7 P.(2d) 1110, 9 P.(2d) 257; Pasadena Ice Co. v. Reeder, 206 Cal. 697, 275 P. 944, 276 P. 995; In re Novotny's Estate, 94 Cal. App. 782, 271 P. 923, 273 P. 58; People v. New York Indemnity Co., 113 Cal. App. 487, 298 P. 849.