The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1892-03-26

ing within the power of the board 10 do, il
not rendered invalid by the fact that one
member did not attend it.
D. "A statute providing for an election as
10 the issue OF bonds by county, directs
mat the returns Of the election shall within
Two Gays alter the election be delivered to
the clerk of the Circuit Court to be laid be-
lore the board of county commissioners
and that the board shall publicly canvas
Inc returns at their next regular or special
meeting and declare the result: Held
| that the purpose Of the act in the use oil
| the words quoted was to secure prompt
ness OF action upon the part of the board
rather than to exclude from any particular
meeting, the power to canvass the returns
| anu that canvass of such returns made at
an adjourned regular meeting held on a
day subsequent to the election, to which
| day the regular meeting had been adjourned
from day prior to the election, was legal
lO. Payment of poll taxes was not a re-
quiste or qualification for voting at the
election in Duval county as TO issuing
bonds under the act of June 18th, 1891, for
| the Improvement of the navigation of the
st. Johns River. Though this is not ex,
pressly declared by the act, its provisions
| show clearly legislative intent that no
| such qualification was 10 be required,
but that all persons duly registered
as voters and retaining the qualifications
which preserve the legality of registration
should have the right to vote
IL. The act OF June 18th, 1891, author
| lzlng Duval county to improve the naviga-
tion OF the St. Johns river, required re-
turns to be sent to the clerk of the Circuit
Court, and to be delivered by him to the
county commissioners, and authorized the
commissioners to canvass them. The
county judge and supervisor OF registration
had nothing to do with the canvass under
the general election law, and properly took
no part in ii.
II. That canvassing board has before
it when making canvass OF votes cast al
an election, not only the returns properly
made under the statute, but also dupli.
cate return made to an officer which the
law did not require to be made, is imma-
terial.
13. The mere fact that oaths of inspec-
tors and poll lists may have been trans
mitted to an officer not authorized to re-
ceive them, IS an irregularity which does
not affect the result of an election or the
legality of the canvass of returns duly made
OF VOteS cast at tne clecClOn.
ii. The act of June 11th, 1891, author
izing Duval county to improve the navi-
cation of the st. Johns river, provides that
! the bonds to be issued under The act :shall
bear the seal of the aforesaid county of Du.
val" The county commissioners passed q
resolution that "the seal of the circui,
court for Duval county, and Of this board
| now in use, is adopted as the common sea-
Of Duval county" Held, that the act au
| thOriZed the use OF the seal OF the circuit
court OF Duval county IN sealing the bonds
and to the extent that the resolution indi
Gated the will of the board that it should
be 80 used, the resolution was valid, bu
| not further or otherwise.
Decree affirmed.
: Cooper g Cooper, for appellant Ran.
Thomas A. Johnston, Plaintiff in Error
vs.. the State of Florida, Defendant in
Error-Orange county.
Judge Malone, of the second circuit
sat in the place of Mr.. Justice TAYLOR
who was disqualified.)
MALONE, Circuit Judge:
1. An appellate court will not disturb
| Iuo VoTulcI VI jury DIS OelnS contrary C(
the evidence when it is not contrar,
thereto but is sustained by it.
2. Even admitting that there may bt
an error in one of the charges, the YER
dict will not be disturbed on account of il
where it is clear that such error is cor
rected by other charges on the same
point, and particularly where the testi.
mony is such as to preclude the conclu.
sion that the party is not guilty Of the
offence of which he has been convicted.
8. An appellate court may refuse to
notice points urged in the brief of coun-
sci for plaintiff in error, which are not
covered by the assignment of errors.
4. The striking out of immaterial testi-
mony by the court is not error.
S. An objection not made in the trial
court as to the admssibility of evidence
can not be urged in the appellate court.
Judgment affirmed.
E. K. Foster, for plaintiff in error;
William B. Lamar, attorney-general, for
the state.