The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1908-12-08

takes to transport the same for hire,
such company assumes the relation
or common carrier and becomes
chargeable with the duties and obi
cations which are incidens 10 that re
lation, except SO far as sach duties
and possibilities may legally be
modified by special contracs.
4. A common carrier of goods can
not legally stipulate for exemption
from liability for losses occasfoned
by its own negligence or that OF Its
agents or servants, and all stipuia
tons for exemption from negligence
whether gross or ordinary, are inef
fectuaL A failure to exercise the care
and diligence due from railroad com
panies as common carriers is. negli
gence, without any legal distinction
as being gross or ordinary.
Judgment reversed.
H. S. Hampton for plaintiff in er
ror.
George P. Raney and P. o. knight
for defendant in error.
In the Supreme Court of Florida
Division A. June term, A d., 1908.
George Ladson, plaintiff in error
VS.. The State of Florida, defendant
in error, Shackleford, C. J.
1. Section 1856 of the General Stat
ntes of 1906, as amended by Section
1 of Chapter $500 of the Laws of 1907
providing for the prosecution OF those
selling liquor in counties or precincts
voting against such sale, is not I'M
constitutional because of the omission
Of the word Intoxicating" before the
word liquors" therein.
2. An Indictment in the form pre-
scribed in Section 1868 of the General
Statutes of 1906. charging the accused
with carrying on the business of a
terms that the liquors were intoxicat-
ing.
Judgment affairmed.
G. C. Martin, for plaintiff in error;
w. H. Ellis, attorney general, for the
state.
In the Supreme Court FLORIDA,
Division A, June term, A. D., 1908.
Emma E. Starks, Hiram Starks,
Frances L. Smith and Lucius T.
Smith, her husband, Alice Greimer,
Agnes Lightbody and Frank A. Light
body, her husband, Ella Weeks and
Harry Weeks, her husband, Susan
and Alfonso Nickerson. her
husband, Ora Starks and Floyd Starks
by, Lucius T. smith, their
next friend, plaintiffs in error, VS.. Sa-
rah r. Sawyerand JAMES e. Alexan-
der, defendants IN error. Whitfield,
J.
l. A failure to comply strictly with
those provisions of tax laws which are
intended for the guide of officers in
the conduct of business devolved upon
them, designed to secure order, sys-
tenn and dispatch in, proceedings, and
by a disregard of which tie rights of
ffnC infnroctnd ho IT1iUrin1lE.
ly affected, will not usually render the
proceedings void; but where the re-
quisites prescribed are Intended for
the protection of the citizen, and to
prevent sacrifice of his property, and
a disregard of them might and gen.
orally would injuriously affect his
rights, they cannot be dlsregarded,
and failure to comply with them Will
render the proceeding invalid.
2. The provision of the statute re-
qufring the clerk of the circuit court
to mail a copy of the notice of appli-
cation for tax deed to the owner OF
the land or if the owner be unknown
TO deliver or mail such copy to the
person last paying takes On the prop
arty was intendedeffor the benefit OF
he land owner, and disregard OF the
provision when applicable renders the
Iced invalid
8. The validity of tax sale certif-
cate and the rights of the holder
hereof other than a governmental
agency of the state, are to be deter
mined by tle laws in force at the time
he certificate is acquired. A statute
apssed cannot constitu-
ionally impair any of the substantial
lights secured to a private holder by
he existing laws when the certif1
ate was acquired.
4. A statute enacted after the ac-
Iuisition by private party of a tax
ale certificate, requiring particular
nd additionl notice be given to the
wner of the Ind before deed issues
n the certificate, when the right to a |
eed mad not become absolute and the
living of the notice imposes no bur-
en- upon the holder of the certificate, |
nay not impair any substantial right |
4 the holder of the certificate, and |
may not be an impair
nent of vested property rights or a |
eprivation of property without due
rocess of law.
5, A charge directing a verdict |
or the defendants should never be |