The Lakeland evening telegram. (Lakeland, Fla.) 1911-1922, 1915-06-12
Supreme
Court
Opinions

in the following cases:
w. C. Tully, plaintiff in error. VS..
State of Florida, defendant in error,
Leon county. Opinion prepared by
Justice Shackelford. There is
wide interest attached to this case
in this and adjoining counties. The
Tully family is we'll known and had
many connections in these counties
At the fall term of court of Leon
county, with Judge Wolfe, formerly
of Pensacola, presiding. w. c. FULLY
Jr., and his cousin, A. E. Tully. were
tried for rape. w. C. FULLY was
convicted of the crime of assault
with intent to commit rape, and SEN
fenced to the penitentiary for ten
years The case against A. E. Tully
was continued and was not called
for trial at the spring term of the
court Just closed In the opinion OF
the supreme court just handed down,
the Judgment of the lower court
with reference to w. C. Tully is al
firmed and without action on the
part of the pardonihg board. Tully
will have to serve the ten years IN
the penitentiary He has been turn
ed over to the sheriff by his bonds
men and is now in Jail and commit
ment papers had been made out fol-
his transfer to the state prison few
days ago, but this transfer has been
delayed account of application of his
attorneys to the governor for re-
spite so as to give them chance to
present their case to the pardoning
board before taking the defendant to
prison. The opinion of the supreme
court is quite "a long one, taking UP
twenty-five legal pages of typewrit-
ten matter. Every question raised
by the defense is gone into quite
fully and various authority to justify
the court in overruling the thirty
assignments of errors offered by the
defense. The first error assigned by
the defense in it's appeal is The
court erred in permitting the wit,
ness (the young woman in the case)
to testify over the objections of the
defendant as to the conversation be.
tween herself and the other girl
such conversation being held in the
absence of the defendant" The cour'
holds that while this testimony was
a conversation that took place be
tween the two girls individually, i
was the first testimony offered by tn
state. and it is thought was admiss
able for the purpose of leading vi
to substantial subsequent events ant
rendering them ineligible to tn
Jury. Most of the other errors offer
ed by the defense is on the groun
of the trial court sustaining objec
lions of the state as to certain ties
timony.
c. A. Boyette, plaintiff in errol
VS.. State of Florida, defendant in Ell
ror, Jackson county. Opinion b
Chief Justice Taylor. Boyette wa
convicted and sentenced for murde
in the second degree and brings tn
Judgment here for review on writ
error. The first contention of d.
tense is that the trial judge erred !
giving to the jury the chare
''Where a Preventative design
effect the death of person killed
essential to the sense of murder
the first degree, as it is in this stat
intoxication though voluntary,
relevant evidence to be considere
by the jury as to it's effect upon tt
ability of tn accused at the time II
the killing to form or entertain sue
design. If the jury find from TT
evidence, or have reasonab
doubt, that the defendant was so il
toxicated at the time he shot ar
killed John Cason, as to be incapab
of forming such premeditative d
sign, but for such incapacity
would be guilty of murder in tt
first degree. you cannot find hi
guilty in the first degree becau
such design is an essential elemel
of murder in the first degree, but
would be guilty of murder in Il
second degree The contentit
here is that the jury should ha
been left free to have found the d
PENDANT guilty of manslaughter. b
that they were precluded from til
by the charge, 1--WE think the e'
dence sustains the verdict, and fin
ing no error in the record, the jud
ment is sustained"
Emmett Thomas. plaintiff in err
VS.. State of Florida, defendant in
ror, Escambia county Opinion
Justice Cockrell. The defenda
was tried and convicted for the mi
der of Ruby Bares, alias Ruby +
gan. and was sentenced to hang. "a
brings his case here for review
writ of error. The first count of
defense is that the court failed
charge upon circumstantial eviden
This court in its opinion in answ
ing its contention uses the followi
language THE court was not
uuested to so charge, and the C
does not depend upon circumstan'
N mr.