The Weekly Tallahasseean. (Tallahassee, Fla.) 18??-1905, 1900-11-01

D0CdIlSO SUCH WIGuCSS Is uudUIC W
separate from the general mass the
identical plants taken.
6. Instructions based upon the
DRY not sustained by the evidence,
or which are substantially covered
by other instructions given by the
court, are properly refused.
7. Where two or more persons
are charged under section 2516 Re-
vised Statutes with wiIfulIy COM
hitting trespass by carrying away
something which is parcel of; the
realty, the offence is joint and sew
eral and any one or more of the &C.
cused may be found guilty if the evil
dence justifes it, even though the
others are not proven to have been
connected in any manner with the
commission of the offense.
8. An instruction to the effect that
in a case of circumstantial evidence
where the rriminative circumstances
are either. denied by the defendants
or are explained in such way as to
render their guilt doubtful, it is the
duty of the jury to acquit the &C
cused, is erroneous and ought to be
refused.
9. An instruction that where de-
PENDANTS charged with criminal tres
pass upon realty give natural and
reasonable explanation of their pos
session of the property alleged to
have been taken, it then dev0lves
upon the State to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that such expEana-
ton is false, and if such explanation
be not shown by the State 70 be
false beyond a reasonable dOubt,iit is
the duty of the jury to acquid the
accused, is erroneous and ought to
be refused. !
10. 1t is proper to refuse insIruc-
tions as misleading when they are
based on the theory of a party hs to
facts in evidence and ignore THE eff
feet of other facts applicable ts the
relation and rights of the parties.
II. Upon the trial ofan information
based on section 2516 Revised Stat
utes, for wilful trespass upon another'S
land by carrying away something
which is parcel Of the realty, alleged
to be of ia value exceeding twenty
dollars, the defendant may be found
guilty even though the value OF the
property carried away be shown to
be less than twenty dollars; but, in
that case, the verdict should state
the exact value OF the property, or
that its value is less than twenty dol
lars, in order that the court may i'm
pose the penalty prescribed for the
offense where the value of the prop
erty does not exceed twenty dollars.
II. Where the defense interpOsed
in criminal case is an abb, and evil
dence tending to prove it is intro
duced, and the court in its instruc-
lions makes no reference to the de-
fence of abb, it is error to refuse an
instruction to the effect that it is not
necessary that the defendants shall
prove an alibi beyond reasonable
doubt; that it is sufficient if the evil
dence offered to prove it raises a
reasonable doubt in the mind Of the
Jury whether or not the accused was
at the scene of the crime and partic-
ipated therein, and that in SUCH cases
it is the duty of the jury to 7cquit
the accused.
! Is. Upon the trial of an infOrma-
ton drawn under section 25r6 Re
vised Statutes for wilful trespass
upon the land of another by carry
ing away pineapple plants, parcel of
the realty, an instruction that before
the jury can convict the accused of
severing, taking and carrying away
the pineapple plants charged I'm the
information, it must be proved be-
yond al reasonable doubt that they
took them for the purpose Of con-
verting them to their own use; that
to constitute the offense charged an
intention upon the part of the de-
PENDANTS to benefit or gain by the
taking is essential, and the accused
can not. be convicted unless such in
tention is proved beyond a reasOna-
BILE doubt, is erroneous and light to
be refused.
IA. An accused person on trial for
an offense is presumed to be innO-
cent until his guilt is proven beyond
a reasonable doubt, and he; has a
right to have the jury so instructed.
Judgment reversed.
Alex. st. Clair-Abrams, for PLAIN
tiffs in Error; William B. Lamar, At
! torney-General, for the State.
See second page for other de-