The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1892-09-24

IN default OF payment OF The fine and CO. 80"
and the omission To do so is error for WIZ,
the judgemnt or sentence will be revereei
and the Temanded for sentence in g.. gu
pliancc with the act, but no, tor ~
trial
Reversed arl remanded for proper SEN
tence.
w. p. WARD, for plaintiffs in GRO.
William b. Lamar, Attorney General TO- 70,
he State. vi
Abner G. Baker, Plaintiff in Error -.
The State of Florida. Defendant H.
or-IIillsborough county ""' IN
RANEY, c. j.:
A State witness was asked on his cross
examination who aided him in MAKING rs
internal examination of the deceased anS S
replied that DR.. Wall did so; and W. W.
then asked: "Who requested Won sn ~S
DR.. Wall to do SOP" and replied. II tb;nS
it was yOurself.' Counsel for the stata
thereupon objected, and inquired VIII
was the object of this whereupon H.
defendants counsel objected, and n"
court sustaining the objection, he excent.S
to the ruling: Held, in tie ab,enca ~
any showing to the trial Judge of the
"Object" not error
9. A question was objected to and tho
objection sustained, but subsequently, tho
objection was answered, in effect by tho
same witness: He'll, That anv error in
the ruling was cured,
). Whereas an expert may not be in.
terrOgated upon an hypothesis having no
foundation in the evidence, it is vet not
necessary that the Hypothetical case put
to him should be an exact reproduction
OF the evidence, or an accurate presenta.
ton of what has been proved. Counsel
may present hypothetical case in &C.
cordance with any reasonable theory of
the effect of the evidence: and if the ury
find that the facts on which his hypOthe.
sis or theory Of the effect of the evidence
IS based are not proved, the answer of the
expert necessarily falls with the hypoth-
esiS
4. Where a statement made by counsel
in argument is objected to by opposing
counsel, who asks permission to be heard
and the trial court refuses to hear the OBJ.
lection, and directs the opposing counsel
to take his seat, the appellate court will
not review the action of the trial court in
the absence Of any showing of what the
statement objected to was, but will pre-
oU'hN 'i0O CilNlC IlOIuIIS OUJcCllOU-
able in tue statement and that the trial
court acted rightly
5 The fact that it could not reasonably
have occurred to the defendant. or
did not occur to him, that the death of
the deceased was reasonable or proba-
bic result Of the formers assault. does
not prevent a conviction of manslau ghter
in the fourth degree.
Deceased was lying upon a bed in his
room after dinner when defendant enter
ing asked him if he owed him anything,
and deceased replied that he did There
upon defendant cursed him and struck
lin, while he was lying on his bed on his
side with his head raised about four
inches above the pillow. two blows in the
lac which blows knocked Il piece of
skin of the heck ami caused one of his
APPS 70 be cut on the inner side for an inch
/ three quarters. but net extending
through 1t Defendant then left the room,
and deceased vas found to be in a living
condition and died without Iallying \ post
Dt1rtenl examination discovered Il rupture
OF blood vessels and large quantity
of blood ut the base Of the brain: and also
slight evidence OF disease in the valves of
iiie heart but no sufficient to cause death
The deceased had been on spree the
night before, and had also taken several
glasses of beer on the morning of the
fatal day, and had then complained of
pain at the base of his brain, and had
water poured on it. The physicians who
made the post nlOrtem examination, they
alone being examined as experts. were of
the opinion that the stated effusion of
blood was The cause of death, but neither
stated what produced the rupture One
of them thought it very improbable that
the blows had anything t. do with it. but
would not say positively that they had
nothing to do with it, and the other,
while he thought it very improbably that
the blows. of themselves, produced it. vet
expressed views which support the theory
that they may indirectly or through
cau-ing accelerated heart
action have produced it. The verdict was
guilty Of manslaughter in the fourth
degree Held, that the testimony sus-
tanned, beyond a reasonable doubt the
thai death was produced or
FASTENED by the assault.
Z. Where a judge charges the jury that
the state must prove that the defendant
assaulted the deceased and that the
latter's death was caused or hastened by
the assault alleged TO have been COM
mitted upon him by the defendant the
jury must be given the credit of under
standing that the Judge was speaking of
the assault testified to by the witnesses
and of so applying the charge; and we
can not impute to them disregard of
the actual case before them and action
upon all extreme suggestions case put
by counsel, and conclude therefrom that
they misunderstood the charge or were
misled.
Judgment affirmed.
Macfarane & Pettingill, and Macfarlane,
for plaintiff in error; William B. Lamar,
for the state.
The State Of Florida er rel. Benton C.
Rude, Plaintiff, VS.. William B. Young,
Circuit Judge, Defe dant-Mandamus
RANEY, G. j.:
l. To authorize the disbarment of
attorney upon charge OF unlawfully a.
COrruDtlV aiding ASSISTING and co,lnsrlR