J. N. TOGBA, Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA,

Appellee. MOTION FOR REARGUMENT. Argued April 25, 1967. Decided June 16, 1967. 1. On a motion for reargument, unless the motion appears to be based upon legally tenable ground, or one of the concurring Justices expresses a desire to have the case reheard, the motion will fail and reargument will be denied. A motion for reargument was made, claiming that the Supreme Court had overlooked substantial issues when it adjusted the original judgment providing for restitution of an amount embezzled. After studying the record and the argument in the motion, it was the Supreme Court’s opinion that no legal issue had been neglected in the first argument and the motion was denied. Beysolow and Cooper, by Momolu S. Cooper and Richard Diggs, for appellant. Attorney General James A. A. Pierre and Solicitor General Nelson W. Broderick for appellee. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WILSON delivered the opinion of the Court. On January 17, 1964, this Court, ruling upon a petition for reargument in which an opinion and judgment had been rendered against petitioner, Joseph N. Togba, adjudging him guilty of embezzlement and sentencing him to one year imprisonment, a fine of $300.00, and ordering restitution in the sum of $48,866.60, granted his petition with limitation, specifically in respect to the sum of $4,916.66, by which amount the restitution ordered by said judgment was to be reduced. The claim of right to reopen the whole case, on the ground that the $4,916.66 was in excess of the $48,866.60 68 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 69 restitution to be made as part of said judgment as affirmed by this Court, was rejected and denied and the judgment ordered amended to reduce restitution from $48,866.6o to $43,949.94, thereby excluding the $4,916.66 which was reclaimed by the auditors at the time of the auditing of the petitioner’s account, but inadvertently included in the amount of restitution to be made by him. In the brief filed by appellant’s counsel during the March 1966 Term of this Court, the point of limiting the reargument to count 3 of petitioner’s petition for reargument was raised and the contention was advanced that the Court had inadvertently overlooked and failed to pass on the other four counts of his motion or petition. These counts, by inspection of the motion and comparison with the opinion of this Court affirming the judgment of the lower court, were lengthily discussed and extensively passed upon in the opinion of this Court, and, hence, were not overlooked. Therefore, a reargument prayed for in respect to them, that is to say, counts I, 2, 4, and 5, are hereby denied. It is, therefore, our abiding conviction, and we hereby declare, that the judgment of the lower court, save by amending and reducing the restitution to be made by appellant from $48,866.60 to $43,949.94, be, and the same is hereby, ordered enforced, upon authority of Snyder v. Republic of Liberia, [1936] LRSC 4; 5 L.L.R. 88 (1936) , where the Court held : “Unless the moving party can show that there was some material point of law or fact inadvertently overlooked in the original opinion, and one of the concurring Justices desires a reargument, such an application will be denied.” The clerk of this Court is hereby directed to send a mandate to the court below, ordering that court to resume jurisdiction in said case and enforce its judgment. And it is hereby so ordered. Reargument denied.