The Weekly Tallahasseean. (Tallahassee, Fla.) 18??-1905, 1901-12-20
HEAbNoTEs TO SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS.

Dix dewitt, Lum Hewitt and Moss
.Hew4t, plaintiffs in error, VS.. the State
of n orida, defendant in error; DuVal
cOu1H y. Mabry, j.:
1. by the common law an accused
had he right to be tried in the county
in Ihicn the offence was alleged to
have been committed, where the wit
ness IS were supposed to be accessible
and where he might have the benefit
of a good character, if he had establish
Ell d be there, but if an impartial trial
coul not be had in such county it was
tue practice to change the venue to
somk other county where such trial
couM be obtained. The right of trial
in tie county where the offence is alleg-
ed 70 have been committed, when an
INN rtial jury can there be had, is
secured to the accused by section IL,
Declaration of Rights, constitution OF
1883 but it is not the design of this
precision to force a trial in county
whsse an impartial jury can not be OBJ
taithd, as to do so would defeat the
grekter and more important right of a
spekdy trial by an impartial jury.
2kThe statute in force in this State
in Reference to change of venue in
criEinal cases without the consent OF
thekaccused (sections 1928 and 1929 Re-
viskd Statutes, and Chapter 1894, laws
of 1855, authorize the court to direct
6tange of venue when an impartial
| jurk can not be secured in the county
whEre the offence is alleged to have
bedh committed, and limiting their
me- ming to authorize the change with
QUE the consent Oh the accused when it
is impossible to secure an impartial
juR in the county where the offence
waS committed, they are constitution
aLk
4 An accused may under statutes in
th& State be convicted as an accessory
be- ore the fact to murder in the second
decree.
Judgment affirmed. Wills & Long,
D.. III. Gornto and John E. Hartridge Tor
pl& ntiffs in error; William l.. Lamar,
at41rEey-general, for the State.
JUNE TERN, 1901.
3. G.. Ingram, plaintiff in error, VS..
thu Jacksonville Street Railroad Com
pa&y, defendant in error; Duval coun-
tyg Mabry, j.:
) demurrer may be applied to parOl
evidence when certain and direct and
wien reduced to record in the form OF
a Sertain statement of facts which the
evidence proves OF intends to prove
BIT it is not the Office of a demurrer to
Evidence to bring before the court ar
Investigation Of the facts in dispute, OF
td weigh the force of testimony, OF
tB presumption arising therefromi
AID where the statement of facts re-
dk iced to record under the demurrer is
llbse, indeterminate or consists of cir
Cd Instances which cOnduce to prove
lo& her facts not distinctly admitted, thu
j&ige should refuse to give judgmen
OF the demurrer, and if he does so l
Will be reversed for error.
Judgment reversed.
kAlex. st. Slair-Abrams and VIM. M
l Estwick, Jr., for plaintiff in error
j Jim e .Hartridge for defendant Il
ror.
Henry Green and Casper Green
IAaintiffs in error, VS.. the State o
!, Norida, defendant in error; Wakull
CAunty. Mabry, J.:
? Ii. It is error to admit in evidence, a
Adying declaration, writing not sign
, by the deceased, but certified to b.
? h Justice of the peace as containing tn
Aatement made by the deceased, in tn
8 Essence of testimony that the decease
Bid make the statement contained i
. he writing and believed at the time hi
!. Death was imminent and that he enter
ained no hopeio1 recovery. Such pa
4 Ser should not be admitted per Sc a
! Independent evidence of a dying de
laration.