The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1885-09-30

thorize a court to grant divorce does
not necessarily mean bodily INJURY
! alone. but includes such conduct on the
part Of the husband as would cause tC
the wife continuous and intense mental
suffering and danger to her health.
4. Divorce for cruelty is not granted
as punishment for past acts of violence,
but on the ground of danger to the wife
| if the cohabitation continues.
). Facts not amounting to actual cruel
| ty may be properly stated bill for di-
vorce as laying a foundation for subse-
qlent cruelty, and to show the true rela-
| tions between the parties and the likelI-
hood of the repetition of the violence.
6. Placing his hand on his wife's
shoulder and requesting her to leave the
room is not an act of extreme crnelty by
the husband.
Decree reversed.
Walter r. Yates. for appellant; j. F.
Wellborn, John \. Henderson, T. l..
Clarke, for appellee.
William w. WiiIingham, Plaintiff in
Error. IS State of Florida Defendant
in Error-Pollk county.
Raney, J.:
I. The duty imposed by statute upon
the Clerk of the Circuit Court to draw
from the box the names of persons to
serve as grand urors at term of the
court may be performed by a deputy.
.. When separate paragraphs or parts
thereof of a charge to jury are except
ed to, the whole charge should be con-
sidered. and if considered as a whole the
charge is free from the defects alleged the
exception should be overruled.
3. The Judge charged the jury upon
the subject of intOXication and insanity.
There was no testimony as to the priso-
ner being drunkard, or that he had
been drink ing or was ut the time of the
killing under the influence of liquor or
as Ia amy insanity or mental alteration or
delusinr, and nothing calculated to raise
u reasonable Doubt as to his being sober
and free fr'.m such mental affection ];
Held that the refusal of "A new trial
should not be reversed even ii there was |
error in the charge, the verdict being !
clearly sustained by the evidence and |
appearing calculated to mislead !
the jury or to operate i'll IuriOusly to the |
prisoner i'm view of the facts Of the case. |
I. Objection to the argument of The |
as being beyond the evidence or
.tl, l,nrXt-i-a ChnntI hn rI1a1o at
the time of such abuse of the right or
of argument, and action of the
court overruiing the objection, and the
fact that exception was taken to such |
ruling should appear, with the objection,
in the bill of exceptions. in order to OBJ
late court
,. Where an objection tn remarks of
counsel az violating the right or privil-
asse Of argument, or other objection of .
similar character is made in the trial of
4 cause before IA jury. and no ruling of
he court thereon is shown by the bill of
The objection will be held to
lavc been waived. Likewise, if an ad-
,erse ruling is shown. but no exception
hereto.
No exception to omission of the
CIerk Of the Circuit Court to put the
usual file mark on an Indictment which
las been plead to and of which the rec
,rd shows n due presentation by grand
Jury i'm open court, can be raised pri-
narily in the appellate court. Such
omission is of no practical consequence to
he prisoner under such circumstances.
Judgment affirmed.
Foster & Yates and j. F.,,McClellan for
Plaintiff in Error Attorney General,
or Defendant in Error
| certify the above to be true copies.
ID. c. WILSON,
Clerk Supreme Court.