The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1888-06-07
HRAD-NOrEs TO DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.


man et a. County Commissioners, and IL D.
Faulkner, Clerk OF the Circuit Court OF Nolusia
county, Appellees-Volusia county.
RANEY, j.:
The interest which under the siutue OF 1867.
sec % D. 331 Noes Digest disquafes judge
from sitting in a cause is property interest In
the action or in its result. The interest which
he NAV have in common with other citizens IN a
public matter does not disqnaliiy MIN. .
. The fact that a Circuit Judge signed, with
other registered voters OF the county, pet'ion
addressed 10 the County Commissioners asking
for a change of the county site. did not DIS
qualify him. on the ground OF interest," I" SIT IN
n mandamus proceeding instituted by some OF
the petitioners To compel The Commissioners To
call an election on the question oil changing IN"
county site AS il is male their duty 10 do 10y the
statute.
2 4 Judgment On the merits is an absolute bar
+. "A subsequent action on the same claim. aud
concludes the parties aud their prlvies, not only
As 10 every matter which was oHered ana re-
ceiyed to sustain or defeat the claim, but also rs
to any other admissible matter that might have
been offered for either purpose. The admission
by the pleadings of material facts does not con-
sttute exception 10 the rule
1 A Judgment against "A county, or its legal
representatives as such, in Il matter OF general
Interest To all the people thereof, is, in the ab
sence of fraud between such officials and The op-
posing parties binding upon all the citizens ot
the county.
5 A Judgment in mandamus commanding the
County Commissioners u call An election on The
question OF changing the location ct The couniy
Site is bar bill IN equity instituted by regis
tered voters other than those who We're REALTORS
IN the m.ndamus 10 restrain the Commissioners
from moving the county records To the place
chosen as the county site AT such election, the
mttiers alleged in the bill being such could
have been set up by the Commissioners IN The
mandamus proceeding.
is "A
for an Injunction that the compliments cannot
be entitled TO any relief, the Till may be dis
missed at the hearing of the application for
preliminary Injunction
Foster & Gunbv, John W Price. for Appel.
lants :; Iamn & Stewart, c. p X j. {. Cooper,
Tor Appellees.
Francis A. Johnson, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The
State OF Florida, Defendant in Error-P TX
county.
MAXWELL. {. J.:
l. The minutes OF the Circuit Court should
show by formal entry To that effect the TACT OF
the presentmcut OF an Indictment by the grand
jury in open court Where, however, the fact
Of such actual presentment Is not coniroverted.
aud the motion IN arrest of judgment is upon
the ground of the absence OF such entry. and
there i in The transcript OF the record evidence
from which 1t may reasonably be presumed In
mcnt that such presentment was made, the mo-
ton should be denied
, Where upon such motion it Is fact that
the indictment was regu ,rly presented, the re
cord should be amended nunc pro tune 80 as 10
speak the truth upon the subject.
; Murder in the second degree as defined by
our statute discussed, and the testimony IN this
case held not Ia show Il case coming within the
offence defined.
f. Whether or not a conviction OF an offence
OF minor grade has the effect 10 acqut the prs
oner of the higher grade charged in the indict-
ment and bar Il conviction OF the higher grade on
"A new trial Is question upon which no opinion
Will be expressed until thrrc shall be case OF
such a conviclOn Of the higher grade on new
trial, presented.
D The Illicit relation between the defendant
and the wife OF the deceased, held admissible
eviiencing the formers motive for killing the de
ceased
Reversed and new trial granted
c. C. Wilson, J. H. Humphreys Wall Il Tur
man, Tor Plaintiff in Error Attorney General,
tor Defendant in Error.
VI Marks Appellant, vs. c. 4. Boone Ap
pellee-Orange county.
RASEY, J.:
l. An order made in term allowing sixty
DAYS additional time F." tor settling "A bill OF ex-
ccption>, gives sixty days after the adjournment
OF the term
? Where the holder Of promissory note and
an cndOr>er entitled To notice OF lis dishonOr by
the maker reside in the same place, the holder
has until the expiration of the day following
that Of its dishonor To give the notice.
g. The rule laid down in Sanders ms Admir-
vs.. Sanicrson. 20 Fla 292, to notice when the
piItics reside in different places, and there Is
mail on the day following the day OF dishonor by
the maker, approved.
4. The burden of proving that the notice was
duly given is on the plaintiff and he must show
distinctly That II given in the time required
by law. Proof OF the habtual prompneSs OF
the holder and his attorney IN giving notice in
such cases. and of the tact that the former put
the note in The latters hands for collection &" in
twoor three days or less time after its dishonor,
Is not sufficient to fix the time at which notice
was given in particular case and the liability
of the endorser.
D The charge OF judge As Ia The time within
which notice of dishonor should be given to an
endor>er Of a promissory note, should state def
nely the time allowed by the law, and should
not leave It 10 the jury to determine what is
prompt notice or reasonable diligence in giving
notice under the clrcums ances of the case.
When the testimony docs not sipport the
verdict new tria will be granted.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted.
+. X. Gunby, for Appellanl J. ii. Allen for
Appellee.
State Gr rel. A. W Owens Relttor vs. w d