The trial court consolidated two cases pending against the plaintiff in error in the Criminal Court of Record for Dade County and he was tried on the first counts of both informations pursuant to the State's election to proceed in that manner. They appear identical, except for dates and amounts, and, in effect, charge that the accused was entrusted with money by one J.A. Guyton which was to be used for the sole purpose *Page 756 of investing and trading in the stock market, the net profits to...
This is a companion case to the case of C.I. Carey and C. Frank Harrison v. Town of Gulfport and B.T. Sauls, decided this date. The record and the briefs have been examined and questions to be decided found to be the same as those adjudicated in the latter case. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed but with same directions and limitations as were contained in the order of affirmance in C.I. Carey and C. Frank Harrison v. Town of Gulfport and B.T. Sauls. Costs will be imposed on appellee,...
This is a companion case to the case of C.I. Carey and C. Frank Harrison v. Town of Gulfport and B.T. Sauls, decided this date. The record and the briefs have been examined and the questions to be decided found to be the same as those adjudicated in the latter case. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed but with same directions and limitations as were contained in the order of affirmance in C.I. Carey and C. Frank Harrison v. Town of Gulfport and B.T. Sauls. Costs will be imposed on...
This is a companion case to the case of C.I. Carey and C. Frank Harrison v. Town of Gulfport and B.T. Sauls, decided this date. The record and the briefs have been examined and the questions to be decided found to be the same as those adjudicated in the latter case. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed but with same directions and limitations as were contained in the order of affirmance in C.I. Carey and C. Frank Harrison v. Town of Gulfport and B.T. Sauls. Costs will be imposed on...
This is a companion case to the case of C.I. Carey and C. Frank Harrison v. Town of Gulfport and B.T. Sauls, decided this date. The record and briefs have been examined and the questions to be decided found to be the same as those adjudicated in the latter case. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed but with same directions and limitations as were contained in the order of affirmance in C.I. Carey and C. Frank Harrison v. Town of Gulfport and B.T. Sauls. Costs will be imposed on appellee,...
This case is here on appeal from a final decree entered by the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. The record shows that George P. Coleman, on October 31, 1935, purchased the North fifty feet of Lots numbered 13 and 14 in Block 25 of the Freshwater Addition to West Palm Beach, Florida, from Prince of Peace Lodge No. 106 Independent Order of Good Samaritans and Royal Palm Lodge No. 46 Independent Order of Good Samaritans and Daughters of Samaria, joint owners thereof, for and in...
Appeal dismissed on Motion of Counsel for Appellee.
Writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction of the offense of larceny of an automobile. The record shows that on February 1, 1939, the defendant, James Zellers, was arraigned in open court by Albert B. Hubbard, Assistant County Solicitor for Dade County, and pleaded not guilty. The record shows that on February 1, 1939, the following proceedings were had: "BE IT REMEMBERED that at a term of the Criminal Court of Record, in and for Dade County, Florida, held at Miami, Florida, on the...
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 743 On appeal from an award by Florida Industrial Commission under the provisions of Chapter 17481, Acts of 1935, the Circuit Court affirmed the award and this appeal was prosecuted. The findings and award of the Commission were as follows: "Hearings were held in the above styled claim in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, 829 Ingraham Building, Miami,...
Defendant in error moves to strike the bill of exceptions on the ground that it was not presented to the trial judge for authentication until after the expiration of the ninety days allowed by Rule 88. Motion for new trial was denied July 11, 1939. Bill of exceptions was presented to, and signed by, the judge October 30, 1939. The order of the judge contains the following: The "defendant did on the 30th day of October, A.D. 1939, present and propose this, his bill of exceptions, and requested...
It is urged in this appeal that the prosecutor in presenting his argument to the jury, overstepped the bounds of propriety established by former decisions of this Court on the subject. The source of some of his remarks, which we will discuss later in the opinion, was an innocuous question asked the witness for the State of Florida about the statement of the defendant at the time of arrest with reference to her place of residence. Objection was made to the introduction of this testimony and,...
It is urged in this appeal that the prosecutor in presenting his argument to the jury, overstepped the bounds of propriety established by former decisions of this court on the subject. The source of some of his remarks, which we will discuss later in the opinion, was an innocuous question asked the witness for the State of Florida about the statement of the defendant at the time of arrest with reference to her place of residence. Objection was made to the introduction of this testimony and,...
The transcript of the record presented to this Court in the above stated case is not verified and, therefore, the cause should be dismissed. We have examined the transcript, however, and find that it purports to bring for review judgment in the Circuit Court in and for the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida, Gadsden County, denying petition for writ of error coram nobis. We have examined the petition for the writ and find that it states no valid ground for the issuance of such writ. The...
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of opinion that the Judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice BROWN, Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of the opinion that the said Judgment should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to...
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of opinion that the Judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice BROWN, Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of the opinion that the said Judgment should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to...
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of opinion that the Judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice BROWN, Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of the opinion that the said Judgment should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to...
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of opinion that the Judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice BROWN, Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of the opinion that the said Judgment should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to...
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of opinion that the Judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice BROWN, Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of the opinion that the said Judgment should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to...
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of opinion that the Judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice BROWN, Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of the opinion that the said Judgment should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to...
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of opinion that the Judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice BROWN, Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of the opinion that the said Judgment should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to...
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of opinion that the Judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice BROWN, Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of the opinion that the said Judgment should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to...
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice TERRELL, Mr. Justice WHITFIELD and Mr. Justice CHAPMAN are of opinion that the Judgment of the Circuit Court in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice BROWN, Mr. Justice BUFORD and Mr. Justice THOMAS are of the opinion that the said Judgment should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to...
