The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1909-01-29

Decisions Handed Down Re-
Gently by Florida's High
est Tribunal.

( VISION A, June term, I5US.-J. y. Hul-
nal plaintiff in error. V the State OF
/ Florida, defendant in error, Taylor
/ county. SnacklefOrd. c. J.:
/ /. General objections 10 evidence
proposed, without stating the precise
grounds of objections. are vague and
nugatoTy, and are without weight be-
! fore an appellate court, unless the
4 evidence objected to is palpably preju-
/ dicial, improper and inadimssiOle for
/ ana purpose or under any circum-
stances.
> The trial court is authorized 10
fTegUlate the order of the Introduction
of evidence, and its discretion in this
matter will be inteTfeTed with by the
appellate court only wnen a clear
abuse thereof is made to appear.
8 1t is the duty of party resort
| ms to an appellate court to make the
errors complained of clearly to ap-
pear, if they in truth exist, every PIE
sumption being in favor of the correct
ness of the rulings of the tria! court.
4. If question is propOunded to
witness which tends to elicit improper
testimony. it is the duty Of the Oppo-
site party TO object to it and obtain
a ruling on ais objection. If improper
testimony is given in response to a
proper question, the proper method of
removing it from the. consideration of
the jury is a motion to strike 1t. II
1 improper testimony is given in re-
Spouse to an improper question to
which no objection is made, motion
TO strike is the recognized mode of
removing it, but in such a case the
granting or refusing the motion is in
the sound discretion of the trial court,
and an appellate court will not dis
turb such ruling unless an abuse or
discretion is shown.
5. In both criminal prosecutions
and civil actions motion to strike
out the entire testimony of a witness
should be denied, if any part thereof
is admissible for any purpose The
motion should be confined specifically
to the inadmissibie portion.
6. In both criminal prosecutions
and civil actions facts may be estab-
lished by evidence thereof given on
a former trial, provided a proper pred
icate has been first laid therefor To
warrant the admission of such testi-
mony it must be made to satisfac-
tOTily appear to the trial court; ID
That the party against whom the evil
dence is offered, or his privy, was
party on the former trial; % that
the issue is substantially TIE same
in the two cases; go that the witness
who proposes TO testify TO the former
Factory tS Plf te state it with salts
sufficient reason is shown wiz ttlss
original witness IS nor proo~Ns'~------i
In criminal prosecution
AGAINST the accused for selling intoXfj
icating liquors without a hcens9
when it has been made 10 saIIsiaE
toriIv appear that the accused hYl
been tried and convicted of substat-
TALLY the same crime IN the mayo
or municipal court of city or toF II
in the same county. at which forTer
| trial the absent witness was fhS
sworn and testified against theLac-
cused and the accused was anoleu
/ an opportunity of croSs-examlih ING
such witness and did croSs-eXalIhS
him that such absent witness vs. Oh
nomadie habits and was IN sucl GU!
or town for only TWO or JhreeP"S
! tlat his place of residence "P IN
tI,nown and that he had left thscoun-
! t. shortly after such trial, fpaIC
mo no one knew whittier, "a MS
| wherea bouts could not be asciCaIheu
bv diIigent inquiry, the snerlflaF
made every effort 10 secur9ilS a.
tendance at such trial wlthOutucce9S'
a nrima facie case for prfng the
former testimony of such agent VII
ness is established .
s. In order that formerFsCllnony
NAV be provable, it must ave oeen
taken in the course of a 1liCIdI III
ceeding in a competent tIrnoI' ne
particular character of thf Iou lieI vi
proceeding. however. Is IEaleIl oi %
long as IL is judicial in iLhdCuIt'
| o The admission Of tpuIohy SiF- |
en- bv A witness at a fOrp tIidI III d
crimianl prosecution. IS p 'ioi"oIN0
r either of the hearsay ru OF tue CoI-
l stitutionaI provision Of R,iI I'1i
; provided a sufficient amp o'JL ~
2 icate has been first al nc -
] which must be passed ph anu u9'ei
= mined by the trial cor
l. 10. A motion TO str oul eVIuehce
given in a trial befOFhe may Vi oii
> -" - q 1Lo1-o sbOr7Id and perhaps is
= a record of it and ISco Il. II ~ : ,
best evidence, IS per W. uieu,
lif for no other rea'' because SuGn
. motion was directeo lha'OSlS az
= uais, which need I ana HequSni!
; never become mas VI IeSOi
l. Tf ~. acc,l cOnceiVeS that /
T .,,a-+.ta ,+torDev7 his argument to {
r ~ 49, in the r. of the cause, is {
q u -,,a4oT;aI atementS outside {
IL 80 o,-ida,ca the reasonable | {
4 - e ,~o,,r+ having no rela- ]
-. - tLo isSnen tne case and in {
- or caIcuIl 10 excite the pas (
/ 49, "a ;nfIr9 the minds of the I
e i,,TL- s@ains+ hihe should promptly 1
N 49, - tbereto ting the grounds of !
er otI!o-tio- Sec a ruling of the ;! {
It 80. rI,-,,.ao,, D. if tne same is ad- I
er 49, - 1,f11 2 his exception duly {
d. verse 10 MIN, 7
lS 20 Tba gents and arguments I
e .o,,,,.,oT ne progress of a trial {
III " $3.50 i,,rfe comfortable in the 4
C ssef,1 5;scbn of the trial court. I
= -,-5 r|bsre accused in a criminal 3
ID t lliu ipIy objects to the use
Y ~ % 91-t,i(7 Euage by the state at 7
& -. viii stating the grounds of !
Is W biaL unless il plainly ap- ]
X SUI 46s9h language was UnWaT- l
ds P+1+od Circulated to prejudice or I