The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1886-10-28

Enoch Carter, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The State OF
Florida, Defendant in Error-Orange county
MCWHoRTER, c. j.:
l. Whether homicide was perpeiratcd with
= prcmediated design to effect the death of the
person killed or not is question for the Jury to
determine from the evidence
2. The law does not prescribe what length of
time should elapse between the formation of The
design TO kill and its execution TO constitute pre-
meditation. 1t is sufficient if there Was a fully
formed purpose to kill with enough time for
thought, TO convince the jury that the mind of
the prisoner had become fully conscious of its
own design.
g. An instruction asked which is based upon
the assumption that material facts are proved Is
improper and should be refused by the court
L. The court after charging as to the different
grades Of homicide and the requisite evidence
to support them is not bound to repeat the same
charge 10 substance though varied ID terms
g. 1t is no defence that the prisoner had not
been informed that the police of city were in
structed to execute one of the city ordinances
such ordinance being in force.
g. If the record is silent as to whether a pre-
siding judge pronounced to a jury charge as
given or refused, this court will presume that
such instruction was pronounced as the statute
requires.
T. The following language written at the foot
of an instruction asked Refused a. 1t charges
on the evidence, E. K. Foster, Judge 7th Judicial
Circuit" ITO ?hich ruling of the Court the de-
tendant then and there excepted. E. X. Foster,
Judge 7th Judicial Circuit H.. g. J." Is a sufficient
signing aud sealing under Sec. 3, chap. 2096,
Acts 1877.
Affirmed
Raney, j., not sitting.
W. r. Ammo, for Plaintiff in Error; Attorney
General, for Defendant In Error.
Moses B. Selph, Plaintiff 10 Error, vs.. State of
Florida, Defendant In Error-Suwannee
county.
McWHoRTER, G. j.:
/. The witness state OF mind and interest in
respect to the prisoner are always pertinent in
ouiries and should be considered by the jury in
weighing the evidence OF the witness
2. Counsel for prisoner has right to ask
witness for the State on cross examination, ii he
had not taken part in an Indignation meeting
against the prisoner, and if he had not pledged
himself TO do all he could to convict the prison.
er. 10 show whether or no the witness was hos
tile to the prisoner.
g. The asking Of such question by the prisoner
and an affirmative answer as to taking part in
the indignation meeting, will not justify the
court in permitting the witness to state the rea-
SON for calling such meeting and testifyiug rs to
difficulties between the prisoner and other per-
sons, wholly disconnected with the charge for
which prisoner was on trial and which were
calculated to seriously prejudice the jury against
the prisoner.
4 Counsel for the prosecution in criminal
case are not bound to introduce all the witnesses
who were present al the time Of the commission
of the offence.
g. The presiding judge has right in the ex-
ercise of sound discretion To call a witness
either for or against the prisoner, and when 90
called and questioned by the court TO permit
both sides 10 cross examine him.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.
Raney, j., not sitting:
While & White, ]. N. Stripping, B. HI. Palmer
A. ]. Henry, for Plaintiff in Error; Attorney.
General for Defendan. in Error.
Washington Jones, Plaintiff In Error, va The
state Of Florida, Defendant In Error--St
l. Johns c0urty.
McWHoRrER, @. j.: ss,.. IS
1. An Indictment against A for falsely persona
ting B, and procuring from @ money or Other