The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1911-02-10

/ SS Eli
not a Joint one, II Otherwise relevant,
two persons and only one Of them
brings the actdon.
4. Where there is evidence to sus-
tain the verdict and no error ap-
| pears. the Judgment will not be re-
versed on writ Of error.
JUDGMENT affirmed
BLOUNT & BLOUNT & CARTER,
for plaintiH IN error
J. w. KEHOE and H. L. GRACE,
for defendant IN error.
Jackson County.
Attaway McKinnon, plaintiff In er-
ror vs. H H. Lewis. garnishee, de-
PENDANT In error; Jackson county:
Shackleford, J. s.
| /. The primary object OF writ
OF error Is not to try the issues be-
tween the parties but rather to try
! the Judgment rendered by he court
below, to test the judgment by the
law.
2. Upon a writ Of error, the re-
spect1ve parties 1itEant 80 presumed
to have had their day IL court and
to have had the points at issue be-
tween them fairly and impartially
tried and determined In accordance
with the law Of the land The final
Judgment rendered In the trial court
Is presumed to be correct, and this
presumption must be met in the appe-
late court and overcome by the plain
tiff In error.
8. Upon 8 writ Of error, the plain
till In error becomes the actor in
the appellate court, whether he oc-
cupied the position Of plaintiff or de-
PENDANT In the court below, and upon
him rests the burden. It is incumbent
upon him to show that the different
rulings of the trial court of which
he complains, or some Of them. are
so infected with error as to call for
and compel q reversal Of the jlrdg
ment The mere fact that technical
error was committed by the trial
court in some Of its rulings may not
be sufficient; the errors must have
been harmful or prejudfcial to the
rights Of the plaintiff in error.
4. A writ of error brings to the
appellate court for review the differ
emit rulings made by the trial court,
whether upon the pleadings or dur
Ing the trial of the action, upon which
errors have been properly assigned.
S. It is the duty of party resort
ing to an appellate court to make the
errors complained OF clearly to ap-
pear. K 6hey In truth exist, every pre-
sumption being In favor OF the re-
srectiYs rulings OF the trial court
8. In preparing assignments of err
;;sror, each error relied upon, should be
clearly and distinctly specified and
separately assigned.
I. A single assignment N error
sttackfng plurality Of rulings Of the
trial court, whetner upoc the plead.
/: iugs, the admission or rejection Of
/: evidence, or the giving or refusing
/ of Instructions to the jury, will be I'M
availing, unless all Of such rulings
30 grouped en- Masse are erroneous,
| easi .he determination by an appellate
court that one Of the rulings 60 at
tackled Is correct disposes Of the as
!, SHIPMENT.
s. Assignments based upon the ex-
clusion Of testimony to be available
must be 50 presented to an appellate
court as to make It appear that the
excluded testimony was relevant and
material, or otherwise proper to be
/! admitted.
! 8. Where a question to a witness
to which an objection has been sus-
, tanned on the trial does not itself
indicate whether the answer I'd 1t will
be material or pertinent evidence,
the party seeking to introduce the evil
dence, in order to have such ruling
, reviewed upon writ Of error, must
| make an otter Of what he proposes
to prove, so that both the trial and
appellate court can determine the
| proposed evidence is material; other
wise he fails to make his alleged err
ror to appear, and an appellate court
will SO declare.
10. Errors assigned and not argued
Will be treated as abandoned. It Is
not sufficient merely to repeat the
error assigned and state that In the
opinion OF counsel this constitutes err
ror, or that an inspection Of the evil
! dence. or instructions, or OF the rec
ord Will show 1t ts, be error. Unless
the error complained Of ts SO glaring
i or patent that no argument Is nee.l-
ed to demonstrate It, the plaintiff
in error should call the attention Of
the court TO the specific grounds upon
J which be claims hat the error ;s has
!, ed, stating hds reasops therefor. cit
Ing the authorities upon which he
relies n support thereof, and, where
reference to the record Is necessary,
should give the pages thereof.
/. II. Where It Is apparent that no
evidence hiss been submitted upon
which the jury could lawfully find
for the plaintiff. the trial Judge may
direct verdict for the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
d. L. McKinnon. for plaintiff In err
PAUL CARTER, for defendant in er-
/ DuvaI County.
]. P. Musselwhite, Theresa e. Mus
selwhite, w. H Howard and Rena
C. Howard. West-Flynn & Harris Com
pany. corporation, and Fynn-Har-
ris Bullard Company, a corporation,
appellants vs. Svend Oleson. appellee;
Duval county; Hooker, J.
| /. As q general rule where a ven.
dor Is unable to convey proper
title according to his contract, the
| ven.Jeo NAV treat the contract an AT