The motion for rehearing is denied. The motion contains the following ground:

“3. The Court is most respect- „ „ , , , ., fully requested to reconsider its con-elusion from the evidence that ‘At Bridge-man’s Request (Italics) they entered the house * * *’(0.2). Bridgeman testified (R. 164) that he gave his permission conditioned upon ‘if it’s what I think it is, what it smells like’ and only then after the officers asked him for his permission.”

In view 0f the emphasis which we placed on the fact that the entry was at Bridgeman’s request, we think it appropriate to answer this ground of the mo-¡¿on pointing out that the testimony 0f the State Officer contained the follow-^ng passage'

„ Aad m ^ 0 Mr. Bridgeman> tell ou to g0 in there and gee about it and gee what was inhishouse? A. That’s right.”

Based on this evidence the trial court found thf Bndgeman “n,ot ed but asked the officers to go m and see about it.” We think that our conclusion that the officers entered the house “at Bridgeman’s request” is a proper condusion on this state of the record.