The Weekly Tallahasseean., 1900-12-06
SUPREME c6uRT

EteadnOtes to Decisions, june Term,
A. d. 1909.
Charlie Long, Plaintiff in Error,
The State of Florida, Defendant
in ErrOr.-Jackson county
MABRY, j.:
!. Verdicts should be certain and
import a definite meaning, but any
words that convey beyond reasona-
bic doubt the meaning and intention
of the jury will be sufficient, though
the spelling may be bad.
z A new trial should not be
granted on the ground of newly dis
covered evidence that goes merely
to impeach the character of witnesses
or that is SIMPLY cumulative.
3. The evidence In this case held
to be sufficient to sustain the verdict
of the jury.
Judgment affirmed.
M. D. Price, for Plaintiff in Err or.
William B. Lamar, Attorney Cen
eral, for the State.
G. Towney Kennard,' Plaintiff in En-
ror, VS.. The State of FLORIDA, De-
fendant in ErrOr.-Alachua coun-
ty.
MABRY, j.:
/. As a general rule a witness
must depose to facts within his
knowledge, and can not testify to
matters of mere conjecture; but
where a witness has knowledge of
pertinent facts and speaks from. a
recollection of them as they actually
appeared to him, though his impress
sion may not amount to positive AS
surapce, it is competent to be con-
Sidered by the jury.
=. Ia lawfully defending himself a
man may take life when as a reason
bly, prudent person he has ressona-
bic ground To apprehend a design to
commit felony OH him or to do
him some great personal injury and
there shall be imminent danger of
such design being accomplished,
though As matter of fact there was
no actual danger; but if he wrong
fnlly occasions or brings about the
necessity for his action, though as a
prudent man he may have reasona-
bic ground to apprehend Il design to
commit felony on him or to do
him some serious personal injury and
there be imminent danger of such
design being accomplished he can
not lawfully kill and justify his Com
duct on the ground of self-defense.
! 3 An objection to a portion of a
charge stating an abstract PROPOSE
tion of law on the ground that it is
misleading may be removed by an
other portion covering the ground
so fully as to leave no room for a
misdirection of the jury.
+. The mere statement in mo-
ton for a new trial that the prose-
cutting officer made a certain state
ment to the jury, where the motion
is Overruled without a certificate
from the Judge that such statement
was made, affords no evidence of the
existence of such fact.
5. 1t is proper for the trial court
in charging the jury to con6ne a
principle of law applicable to the
cause to the facts disclosed by the
evidence. "
6. In considering an objection to a
portion of charge the entire por-
ton bearing on the subject may be
considered, and if the objection be
removed when the entire portion is
taken together, there is no ground
of complaint.
Z. When the substance of re-
quested charges has been fully given
in instructions, it is uot error to re-
fuse to repeat the instructions, though
expressed in different language.
8. A requested instruction for an
acquittal predicated upon an isolated
fact, or only part of the evidence
that is not conclusive of the merits
of the case, is properly refused.
Judgment affirmed.
Evans Halle and Clark & Gibbons,
for Plaintiff in Error.
S. r. Lang, Plaintiff in Error, VS..