The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1889-05-21

MAXWELL. j.:
l. Action on The case and not irespass CT ct
arms is The proper remedy for damage 10 the
revtr>ipner, both in relation 10 real and personal
property and under our Statute the venue may
be her in ihe county where the cause ot action
accrued. or ia the county OF The residence the
defendant
3 A declaration is not faulty in emitting 10
set forth facts hat are more properly matters of
evi ience when its general allegations include
The facts and are not mere conclusions OF law.
g. A partnership may he sueh for a tort, and
ii one OF The partners dies pending the SUIT An
order to rarry it on against the survivor IS prop
er, and judgment against the survivor will not
be error, there being no question of debt, or OF
the rights Of creditors Of the partnership in
vnlvpd.
Rivers in which the tide Gibbs and flows are
navig .ble streams al common law, and in this
country all rivers are regarded as navigable as
far up as they may be conveniently used ut all
seasons OF the wear for the purposes OF commerce.
and al-o. when declared by statute 10 be navig.-
bic but further than this, what Constitutes a
naviSsble stream, SO far az 10 make il a public
higL way, is a question of fact TO be determined
by the natural conditions in each case. A
stream of sufficient Capacity and volume Of wa
ter to float 10 market the products OF the coun-
try, of whatever kind however fl Isted, will
answer the latter conditions of navigability and
ii is not essential That the stream should be con-
u
5. The Suwannce river At and abpve White
Springs, in Hamilton county, held on The evil
dence TO be navigable stream and public high
way f'r the f1oatage Of logs.
9. But as the statute authorizes the building OF
bridge across such d stream, II built 50 as not
Ia obstruct or unreasOnabIy impede navigation
the floatage of logs must be with due and reason
able regard to the rights Of the bridge owner
If he provides sufficient space and proper cOnve
niences tor the passage 0f logs singy or in RATS
the fioatage must be conducted in such manner
as TO numbers condition of logs as will suit
the passage way. Falling in this, it injury re-
suits to the bridge, the owner will be entitled TO
compensation therefor
7. The bridge in this case being shown TO have
q space OF over 1y feet for the passage of logs
and to have guide booms to direct the foatsge
is held not 10 conflict with proper navigation of
ihs river there; and the letting loose 3 500 or
4 QUO logs on rising walters 10 be precipitated
against The bridge is negligence, which, i, result
ing in the destruction of the bridge, entities the
owner 10 damages from the negligent parry.
8. IN addition to the definition OF negligence.
constituting a cause of civil action, given by This
court. another apt one for this is that il is
fush an omission, by responsible person, 10 use
that degree Of care diligence and skill, which it
was his legal duiy To Use Tor the protection of
another person from injury. as in natural and
continuous sequence causes unintended injury
10 lh: latter.
A. W. Cockrell & Son. for Appellants b. II
Palmer for Appellee.
J. II. Butter AMI F. D. Chapman, Plaintiffs in
Error. vs. the Stale # Florida, Defend AT In
Error-Levy county
RAEEY. c. j.:
/. Two systems OF law which are entirely re-
pnKnant 10 each other cannot be 10 force 10 the
same locality al the same time.
Whanever tho loca! optinu Arti .,f tI,e
Constitution prohibiting The sale of intoxicating
liquors, wines or beer 70 put in operation IN any
county or any election district, it -uspends, dur
ing the period OF its operation therein, the pro
visions OF all statutes authorizing or licensing
the sale o! intoxicating liquors, either spirituOus,
vinOus or malt, in such county or dis,r CT.
8. Where two counts Of az indictment charge
q violation or system OF law which authorizes
the sale of certain liquors if license has been
obtained 10 the manner prescribed by il, and the
other count charges the violation Of system
which prohibits any sale ot such Liquors in
part OF the territory covered by the allegations
Of the former counts, the two sets of counts are
irrechnclla5ly repugnant, and The indictment
Insufficient in law. Ii cannot be known upon
which sys,em the S'ale intends To rely as being
in force in the territory covered by the third
count.
based, some on one system Of law and tue other
on another system, which systems cannoi be IN
opera ION at the same time IN the same terri tory,
anh The verdict Is gully AS charged in the 10
dloimeDt. and the sentence is of Il character
authorized in case oil 4 lawful conviction under
either system, the verdict and sentence will be
sci aside II cannot be known upon what law
the verdict and sentence are founded.
5. Neither The local option Article of The
Constitution, nor the statute enforcing the same
prohibit the sale OF liquors. wine or beer tia. is
not Intoxicating
e An indictment Tor selling liquor wine or
beer in county or election district in which the
local option Article of the Constitution is in
iorce, must allege that the liquor, wine or beer
charged 10 have been sold was intox ica,ing. un-
less IT names specific liquor, wine or beer, OF
whose intoxicating nature the courts take iudc-
ial notice.
T. That courts take judicial notice that
orange Mint" or elixir of orange mint or
whatever might fall under the classification of
patent alcoholic bi,ters," is intoxicating
Qnaere.
=. Whenever indictment alleges that the
local option Article Of the Constitution is in CD.
Grafton in a county or election district the allie
CATION must be proved.
Judgment reversed
TAYLOR Carter, for plaintiffs in error: Attor-
ney-General, for defcndaot IN error
Ex-pare Mack Bowen, Habeas Corpus.
RANRY, G. j.:
L. II is not the function OF Q writ of habens
corpus to bring in review any irregularity or
mere error of procedure cOmynitied hv ind;