The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1909-03-26
Of
SUPREME COURT
Decisions Handed Down Re
Gently by Florida's High
est Tribunal.

In the supreme court Of Florida. Iii
vision b, January term, A. D., 1909.
The j. p Williams company, CT
porauon. plaintiff in error, y. This
Pensacola, ST. Andrews & Gulf Steam
sup company. a corporation, defend
ant il error. Hooker. j:
/. Where a party * not injured b
the. rulings OF a trial court upo;.
pleaGings, and is not thereby prevent
ed from submitting mis- case to he
jury under such a state of pleading rs
gives him the full benefit of his con
teutious, those rulings 10 not present
a good ground for reversal
=. The effect of delay III the tram
pCrjation of goods by a carrier. when
such delay was caused by a storm Cr
&c ot God and the question of prOE-
ina cause in that connection. are
tre.Jed III the cases of Norris y Sd-
vaamah. +. & W. Ry. Co. % Fla. 1SZ,
l South. Rep. AS. and Williams Y.
Atlantic Coast Line r. Co. decided q:
the last tJunel term of this court
Judgment affirmed
BICunt & BlOunt * Carter, for plain
til in error; Avery & Avery, for d.
feEdant IN error.
Oscar Lee, plaintiff in Error, v ,.
c Van PeIt. sheriff defendant in 81
ro-. Hsbeas corpus. Hooker, J.:
J. Where a party is confined in jail
uIide, Il commitment issued upon an
affidavit charging the OffSnse in posi-
tive terms, the commitment and a
fidavit being in proper form. it IS not
competent for him in nabeaS corpus
d greetings TO question the legality OF
his arrest by showing simply that the
prCseC utinG witness or witnesses n7d
10 personal knowledge of the facts
stated in the affidavit. and thereby at
tempting 10 show q want of probable
caISe.
.. While the writ OF habeas corpus
is writ of right in the enlarged
sense OF the term. it does not issue OF
course, but reasonable grounds must
exist for awarding it, and if ii az
pears on the face of the petition that
the party in custody would only Gs
ramanded. the writ should be denied.
Judgment affirmed.
T. P Stokes, for plaintiff in error;
Park VI, TTammeu, attorney general,
fOr the state.
Louisville and Nashville Railroad
company. a corporation. plaintiff in
error, Y. W. G. YaTbTough. defendant
in error, Jackson county. Hooker,
J.
;. The floatage of logs in a nayi-
u
due and reasonable regard to tie
rights OF a bridge owner. and otherS,
and to the general usages and cU5-
toms of navigation and commerce.
, While a railroad is not required
10 keep tle open space under its dra "
bridges over q navigable stream fire.,
from Instructions 10 navigation when
susE4 distractions are present with
on, fault on the part Of the railroad.
ves Il is the duty of a railroad com
pany to prevent the accumulation OF
wrcckage or drift around the piers ot
its bridges which would interfere
with navigation.
; When a raft has lodged against
the fender of the pier OF a railroad
draw bridge on an important line f
railroad about Q o'clock ar night,
there being Il navigable channel sui
ficicLtIy wide 10 easily permit the
passage of boats and RATS on eitha"
side OF the pier. and the raft remain
ed there until three o'clock the next
evening, and when the agent of ile
ov ner thereof has made no proper eff
fn~tS TO remove the raft. or TO notify
the owner of its situation. the river
bCin;; in d rising condition, and "a
ratI being q menace 10 the bridge,
and a nuisance which the railroad
company has the right 70 remove fer
Ks own protection and the protection
of the lives and property of those who
had occasion 10 use the railroad, Ind
the railroad officials had endeavOre I
without avail To pull the raft away
from the pier, and then cut up the
raj about three O'Clock the next day
after it lodged, and part of the logs
were lost. and a suit .cs brought by
the owner Of the logs TO recover of
the railroad company the value Of the
lost logs. IN the trial Of said suit it
was erroneous TO charge the jury the
duty upon the railroad before il BROKE
up the raft TO notify the owner or his
agents of their intention so 10 do. aud
TO allow him a reasRable time and DO
portunity TO take care of the raft aft
il was turned loose" Such a charge
was inappropriate 20 the facts. In re-
moving the raft it was tle duty of Tho
railroad company to use ordinary care
= Dc 10 unnecessary injury to the
owner of the raft, but under the cir
Gun stances neither the owner or his
--E=7--=sS--s=====--