The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1889-08-06

4 The defendant was in the custody OF
guard. (who were arme(D charged with me muir
der of one Hammond rope was placed around
his neck BY the guard who took him from "hele
an inquest was being held over the remains sup
posed to he HammOnd's. carried to the WOODS
not far off. the end of the rope thrown over a
limb and the defendant was then tod ma. HIS
last hour had come that he bad to tell all ABOUT
the crime with which he was charged inc aO
cused denied all knowledge of the CRIME; the
guard then frightened on the rope; let me accuseu
down. and he again denied all knowledge OF me
crime; the rome was again frightened, ana 'ne
prisoner then said if they would give him TWO
minutes he would tell all he knew, and ne lheii
confessed that he guilty. and the guaIu
forced him to promise that he would "slick ~
what he then said, and that he would suck 70 -
IN court The guard then carried the prisoner
before the inquest where there was great eAcl'e-
ment and talk of lynchng, and he again CON
fessed the next dav he was carried before JUS
tice OF the Peace for preliminary eXamlnatlon'
and there in the presence OF two OF the guarus
whom he had promised to stick to What ne llis'
said, without counsel, without any caution oy
the Justice, without being informed as TO his
rights. he again confessed: Held, That it is not
clearly shown that the confession at the preIlml-
nary examination was not made under the ln1u-
ences that induced the previous confessions.
Judgment reversed.
Miller & Spencer, for Plaintiff in Error; Will
liam B. Lamar, Attorney General, for Defendant
in Error.
r. s. Williams, Appellant VS. R. B. Hilton ct
al, Appelees-Notion to vacate Supersedeas.
MAXWELL, j.:
l. 1t is not necessary in chancery appeals
whether from final or nterlocutory decree, that
the plaintiff if appellant should pay the costs al
ready accrued and give bond for future costs.
2. An appeal taken during a term OF the SUI
preme Court is properly returnable to the sue
ceedng term OF that court.
3. On application for supersedeas in appeal
from an interlocutory order or decree, the Judge
or Justice is not required to satisfy his mind on
Irrigated questions, but to see from an Inspection
of the record that there is an appeal, that 1t is
not frivolous, and that the state OF the case as 10
its future course is such as to render stay or
proceedings proper. What was said in Saxon
VS.. Gamble, % Fla, as to not considering the
merits OF the appeal is modified so as to admit
such consideration in order to see whether the
appeal is frivolous
Motion denied
Doggett & Bnckman, for motion; Hammond
& Jackson coHtra.
Samuel F. Marshall, Appellant, V. Joseph Bum
by, Appellee-Marion County.
MITCHELL, J..
l. Where, in a common law action, de-
renee on ttllllhfDt GibVfNiN tRININ'o ~ blA'A'i
clearly available as a defence n Jaw. the Court
without motion should strike il ont Such de-
fence is admissible only when il sets UP matte!
which IL the event of iul4mrnt AZ law equity
would on account OF the equities set up, give
him relief against the indgmcnt
2 l. is a well settled principle OF law that
conditional acceptance does not bcconl" dp" un
I'll the happening OF The contingency upon which
il is accepted.
3 H. contracted Ia erect two houses for NJ; II.
drew an order on NJ (lctrndant WHO was the
agent or NJ with whom II. had ntracicd. in
favor of b., jplAintitf) for $24j which order Tue
defendant accepted. to be paid when the houses
were convicted; B. brought Sui' on fhr acccp-
lance, ana ALLEGED in h declaration 'hat 'hc
houses we're completed when ,uil was Brought,
which Defendant denies hy hi~ plea; the cause WAS
submitted TO q Referee whot ok the 'cS'l'i nnV
(Which is conflicting As 10 whether or not the
houses were completed when SNit was brOuLhr,
and rendered judgment N favor of the plaintiff
for the amount % The acceptance: Wtldtha II was
the duty of the Referee 10 reconcile Me conflict
in the testimony if hc could, hu If he could NOT
do So it was his duty 10 discard any testimony
he did not believe, and 10 render his Judgment
upon the testimony he believed 10 hc true.
Judgment affirmed
:. d. Mcconnell Miller & Spencer, for appel
LIANT II. L. Anderson, Tor appellee.
f. - Murray. Plaintiff il Error, vs.. The State
l.s,t la IRAN. r.. r,,i1,i4