The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1919-08-10

within the limits OF the city or PEN
sacoia in which people live, or where
they congregate or assemble, or any
kind OF business is carried on. shall
De provided with q sanitary privv
that shall be connected with a sewer
as provided by existing ordinances. .
The court has reversed the decree
OF the circuit court for Hillsborough
county in the case OF I. w. Ramsey.
The court has affirmed the judy
ment OF the circuit court for Dade
county In the case OF w. C. Nelson. ct
al. plaintiffs in error. VS. Selden Cy-
press Door company.
The court has affirmed the judg-
ment OF the Circuit court for Pinellas
county in the case OF Sadie IL. Key.
plaintiff in error, VS. Lillian Moore, de-
PENDANT in error.
The court has affirmed the judy
ment of the circuit court for Escam-
bia county in the case of Louisville
and Nashville Railroad company, a
corporation, plaintiff in error, VS. J.
r. English. defendant in error The
opinion is by Hon. James w. Per-
kins, circuit judge. concurred in by all
the justices OF the supreme court. At
torneys: Blount Blount and Carter,
for plaintiff in error; John p Stokes.
for defendant in error. In this case
1t is held that plaintiffs chauffeu-
was not guilty of contributory negli-
gence as a matter of law. in approach
ing q railroad crossing at night at
the intersection Of two city streets,
in plaintiffs automobile. which was a
covered car with closed sides, having
glass panels when it appeared that
he was driving the automobile at a
speed OF or miles an hour and
could have stopped the same in r
space of four or six feet: that tho
lights OF the automobile were burn
ing;. the street intersection was light
ed by an automobile light; that he
could see through the glass panels
of the car; that upon approaching
the crossing the automobile horn;
thatit was his custom in approaching
railroad crossings to look out for
trains, and on the occasion on which
plaintiffs automobile was injured, he
did look and listened as soon as he
reached the intersection OF the streets,
a view of the street on which defend
ant was switching it's freight cars
being prevented before he reached the
intersection. by buildings.
The court has affirmed the judy
ment of the circuit court OF Marion
county in the case of the State OF
Florida. ex rel, Masie A. Lyles. plant
if in error. VS. the city of Ocala, ct
al.
The court has affirmed the judg
ment of the circuit court for Duval
county in the case of Henry s. Rus
sell, plaintiff in error, VS. the state
of Florida.
The court has affirmed the judy
ment of the circuit court for Jackson
county in the case of Chero Cola COM
pany. corporation, VS. Chero Cola
Bottling Works. a corporation.
The court has affirmed the judg
ment of the circuit court for Duval
county in the case of James w. Hill,
ct al, VS. T. X Watson.
The court has affirmed the judy
ment Of the circuit court for Duval
county In the case of I1eonora Jack |
san. ct al. VS. Grace w. Caulden.
The court has affirmed the decree |
Of the circuit court for DeSoto county |
In the case of Charlotte Harbor and |
Northern Railway company. q corpo- /
ration. appellants. VS. the county COM
nissioners OF DeSoto county.
The court has reversed the judy |
nent of the circuit court for Duyal
county in the case of. John G.. Chris
.opher. plaintiff In error, VS. Charles
Blum company, a corporation, and the
,. Muller company, a corporation. Mr..
Christopher had leased to the defend
lnts in error liquor houses. three
stores on East Bay street, in Jackson
lille. for three years beginning April
/, 1913. The lease contained a pro-
vision that one of the stores lis to
De used on the first floor only for
/ first class barroom for white peo-
pie. The Davis package law went
nto effect in Florida on the night or
80. 1915. before the expira-
ion of the said lease. Under that
aw It became unlawful to operate
in this state. The question
n the recent case was. was the lease
lnder consideration abrogated by the
Davis package law.
The court has ordered that the writ
II error in the case OF G.. II. Dyess
4 al, plaintiffs in error, VS. the county
OF Baker county. de-
endants in error. be dismissed for the
eason that the road district involved
las been abolished since the litigation
vas commenced
In the case of Ada Carlton. appel
ant. VS. Thomas N. Carlton. appellee.
rom DeSoto county: the court has
Lecided that the portion of the decree
+ the court granting a divorce shall
,e affirmed. but that the portion that
lenied the appellant any maintenance
5 reversed.
The court has affirmed the judg-
nent OF the circuit court for Mana
ee county in the case Of Clarencej
0rayton. plaintiff in error. VS. the
tate of Florida
Drayton was indicted upon a charge
Il obtaining property upon a false
of another. found gull