The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1885-03-19
HRA D-NOTES TO DECISIONS OF THE
sUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
Jan. Term. A. ID. 1855.
A 3 Sanchez, Appellant, VS. Julia c. Sanchez,
Appeliee-Levy county.
~ =
VAN Y ALKENBURGH, j


l. Aimony is defined, III its legal sense to be
that proportion of the husbands estate which is
ludiciallv allowed and allotted to a wife for her
Snstenance and livelihood during the period o
their separation Where Il prtnt0 tdcte cause OF
action, or defence in divorce appears, upon
proper application the court will ordinarily
grant such alimony and money for the expenses
81 the suit not a of strict right the wife, but
as OF sound judicial discretion
> IN proceedings taken by the wife in al &C
ton 10y The husband Tor allmOny and suit money,
The husband should have due notice of the tim e
and place OF such application 10 the court, and
an opportunity 10 oppose. and the record should
show That suCh was The case.
3 The record affirmativey shows that while
the proceedings for such order of allow nce were
taken before the Judge of the Fourth Circuit
who Is alleged 10 have appointed Il master, the
cause beng pending in the Fifth Circuit il no.
where appears now, when, or by what means the
Judge ot the FourU Circuit obtained jurisdic
ton. Nor does the name of snch master appear
III the record He'd That the record should af-
tirmailvev SHOW that the jurisdiction of the
Judge OF the F0urM Circuit was acquired in
compliance with Chapter 1913, Laws 1851.
4 An order tor almOny and suit money made
on HE application of the wife, where il does not
appear by the record that the husband dul V
notified OF the motion, and had an opportunity
OF opposing. will be set aside.
) All subsequent proceedings in such case,
based upon such order SO illegally made as an
order for an attachment as for contempt in not
compyingitherewith, are VOID and Of no effect
Decree reversed
TAYLOR & San heZ for Appellant
James Washington, Plaintiff in Error VS. The
STATE OF Florida Defendant in Error-Marion
county.
NANNALKENBI-RG !.
l. On Inc trial of defendant in an Indictment
found under Chapter 1863, Laws 1883, tor break
ing and entering building to wit A meat
house with intent 10 steal and carry away prop
cry OF less than the value OF twenty dollars III
order To convict, there must he some evidence to
connect the defendant with the breaking and en-
lerinC
=. 4 court is not bound, upon request of cOun
sci. 10 instruct the jury upon any question which
i not properly before them by reason OF the evil
dence in the cause.
3 Where there is no evidence TO support the
finding OF the jury, the judgment will be set
aside and trial ordered.
judgment reversed.
Miller & Spencer, for Plaintiff in Error; At
terney General, for Defendant in Error
NJ l. Broward, Appellant VS.. J B. Roche, APP
pelee-Duval county.
RANEY, j..
verdict of jury finding of referee
is not against the evidence when there is sufi-
cent legal evidence TO support H. although
there be conflicting testimony on material
points
2 A verdict of jury or finding of a referee
will not he set aside rs against the weight of
evidence unless It's preponderance is such that
the verdict or finding must have been produced
by considerations other than due respec, to the
evidence
3. The declaration contained special count
10 recover the amount paid by the plaintiff as
n1t.. nff d.,f,r n
an acceptance OF the defendant and common
counts tor goods hargained and sold sold and de-
livered money paid and an account stated A
copy of the note and OF the acceptance, and an
open account were filed with the declaration
In the open account are charged the amount OF The
note, anu that OF the acceptance, and various items
OF provisions, and other goods and OF cash, none
.! which covered by the note acceptance
The record shows that after teslifyng to several
Items in the open account: " The plaintiff here
abandoned the store account, and offered in evi
dence the two notes due and mentioned in the
special counts in the declaration ~ Held lst
THIS was no. an abandonment ot his action as
10 either the note, transaction or the acceptance
I'd The abandonment o. the store account rs Il
cause o. action did not preclude the plaintiff
from showing that ii, exc ludins the note and &C
cep,ance amounts, had been paid prior 10 the IN
stitutiOn of the action
An error in assessing costs is not n ground
Tor new trial
) Where The record does not show that costs
as assessed include any item not properly charge
able to appellant, the assessment will no, he dis
urbed on appeal.
Judgment affirmed
A W Cockrell s son, for Appellant, Har-
fridge x Young, R NJ Call, for Appellee
{. t., Appellant VS. the State o Florida, Appellee
Putnam county
NANNALKENBURGH j.:
l. The laws Of this State Mes Dig 1876
clearly point out the manner OF proceeding IN
cases OF basardy. These laws must he strictly
complied with IN order to charge the father OF
an Legitimate child
The complaint must show that the mSther
is single woman, and il must appear ny the
record that process was duly issued on her com
plalnt that The alleged father was arrested by
proper officer: that upon his appearance 10
court. the female making the complaint was ex-
amlned Oh oath in his presence, touching the
Charge against him, and that in the Circuit
Court an issue made by the plea or traverse of
the accused Or by the order OF the court"
Judgment reversed.
b F. Roberts, for Appellant.