The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1892-04-09

AoNou Waa not In COmplanCo VIII Inc
general law In reference to the formation
OF municipal governments, and said special
act, IN 30 far as it seeks to validate the
organization Of said town, is In conflict
with the constitutional requirement, ID the
constitution of 1858, of uniformity IN the
organization of municipal corporations.
.. In proceedings in the nature OF quo
aoG7'rGnt0 instituted on behalf of the state
to test the right to hold an Office, or en-
Joy franchise, great particularly is re-
quired in the answer or plea, and a COM
plate right must be shown on the part Of
the respondent; but on demurrer, bad
plea is good answer to defective infor-
nation.
Judgment reversed.
John w. Price for plaintiffs in error; no
appearance for defendant in error.
William T. Brown, Plaintiff in E rror, vs.
The State of Florida, Defendant in Err
ror-Duval county.
MABRY, j.:
OFFICE OF BILL OF EXCEPTIONs-PREs-
BNCE OF PRISONER IN COURT.
1. At common law a writ Of error did
not lie TO correct an error which was not
apparent on the record, and the statute OF
IL Ed, l, was enacted to provide rem
edy for reviewing decisions OF the trial
court on matters in pals, to which excep-
| ton was taken; and strictly at the COM
| mon law it was doubted if this statute ap-
piled to any criminal case.
2. Our statute (section l, Chapter 1873,
Laws Of 184S, section /, page 454, McClel-
lan's DigesO allows bill Of exceptions in
| criminal cases, but it does not undertake
| to point out the matters and things which
| are proper to appear in bill Of excep-
tions, or the matters decided by the trial
court, which may in this way be presented
for review to the appellate cour.; and wha,
is bill OF exceptions, and its true Office,
are matters left for judicial ascertainment.
3. The true office of bill of exceptions
is to present some objection in point Of
law to TIE opinion, judgment, direction or
action Of the trial court on matters which
do not properly appear Of record, and it is
not its office to supersede or take the place
OF any requisite record entries in q cause,
but to present exceptions taken during the
progress of the trial, to the opinion and de,
cision OF the judge on matters which other.
wise would remain in pals.
cases of felony that the jury was sworn,
| 0hA o'' NAA'oSAOA III tAIo tOcPSCt 10 i0koI ~
q conviction, and it can not be supplied by
recital in the preface of bill Of excep-
tions, intended merely to connect the bill
with tie case tried, that the jury was
sworn.
g. In fesdnies it is necessary that the &C.
cused be personally present during the
progress of the trial, including the judg
ment or sentence of the court; but while
lit is best always to have the record to
show directly and af1rmatively that the
accused was personally present at each
and every Stage of the trial, it will be
sufficient if it appear theretrom by neces-
sary and reasonable implication that he
was present.
Judgment reversed
A. w. Cockrell & Son, for plaintiff ir
error; William B. Lamar, attOrney-gen
eral, for the state.
Joseph Duncan, Plaintiff in Error, Vs. Tht
State of Florida, Defendant in Error
Columbia county.
TAYLOR, j.:
ARSON OF RAILWAY BRIDGE-ALLEGATrOf
OF OWNERSHIP BY CORPORATION-EvL
DENCE - DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE -
VENUE.
l. An indictment charging the wilfu
and malicious burning of bridge ownet
by corporation is sufficient in it's descrip
tion OF the owner when il gives the cor
porate name of the owner, and states ir
substance that the company named is
corporation doing business in this state. II
SUCH cases II is not necessary TO allege ii
the indictment that such corporation wa
duly organized or incorporated under thu
laws of any state or territory"
| .. In the trial under an indictmen,
charging the wilful and malicious burnins
OF bridge forming part of the roadbed o
a railway company named in the indict
ment az the owner of such bridge, the cor
porate eSistence of such alleged owner il
sufficiently proven If 1t be shown that i
was corporation in existence de fact0
and, de facto in the exercise of corporate
functions and franchises, whether it was q
corporation dejure or not.
! 8. In criminal cases when the accused
has put himself upon the country by his
plea of not guilty, be has made his election
TO be tried by jury, and upon his subse
quent demurrer to the evidence, it Is th'
night OF the state to hold him to his elec
} tlon and to have the facts determined By
Jury. In such cases it Is discretionary
with the state attorney whether he will
, consent to take the facts from the Jury BY
joining in such demurrer The court il
such case can not compel the states coun
J sci 10 join in such demurrer.
4. 10 criminal trials it is entirely discre
tionary with the court whether it will en-
terrain demurrer to the evidence, ever
though counsel for the prisoner and tn,
} state should both consent to it. In sucl
case, whether the courts refusal to enter.
tain such demurrer can be made the sub
ject OF review by this court, Qu9res
o. Where the evidence does not ex
pressly locate the crime as having beeI
committed in the county charged In tn
indictment, but there are in the evidenc
references to various localities and land
marks at or near the scene of the crime
known by or probably familiar to the jury
and from which they may have reasonabi,
J concluded that the offense was committe;
10 the county alleged, It is sufficient proc
9. On q trial for the criminal burning o
q bridge alleged in the indicfment In he III,