¶1The following opinion was filed February 16, 1977.
¶2(on motion for rehearing). On motion for rehearing, our attention has been called to erroneous statements in the decision.
¶3For that reason the following, which appears at 74 Wis.2d 642, 645, 247 N.W.2d 694, 695 (1976), is stricken:
“We can find no evidence in the record in this case which will support the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that plaintiff in error solicited Stanley or Auggie or the unidentified ‘trick’ for Joan. It is an equally tenable inference that each customer contacted plaintiff in error, rather than the other way around.”
¶4In lieu thereof the following is inserted:
“We can find no evidence in the record in this case which will support the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that plaintiff in error solicited Auggie for Monica. It is an equally tenable inference that Auggie contacted plaintiff in error, rather than that plaintiff in error solicited Auggie.”
¶5Further, the following, which appears at 247 N.W.2d 692, 696, is stricken:
*646“The state argues that sec. 944.32, Stats., is an included offense under sec. 944.34.”
¶6In lieu thereof the following is inserted:
“It is argued that sec. 944.32, Stats., is an included offense under sec. 944.34.”
¶7This insertion is identical to the sentence as it appears at 74 Wis.2d 642, 646.
¶8These errors do not otherwise alter the substance of the court’s opinion or the outcome of the case.
¶9The motion for rehearing is denied.