Case Name: William Meier, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1923-01-24
Citations: 87 Fla. 133
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Meier, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.
Judges: Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Browne and West, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 133–138

Head Matter:
William Meier, Plaintiff in Error, v. The State of Florida, Defendant in Error.
Opinion Filed January 24, 1923.
Petition for rehearing granted January 31, 1923.
Judgment re-affirmed April 9, 1923.
Petition for rehearing granted June 12, 1923.
Final order entered February 14, 1924.
No material or harmful errors of law or procedure being made to appear in the record 'of the trial, the judgment herein of con- • viction of manslaughter is affirmed.
On Second Rehearing.
Where the members of the appellate court are equally divided in opinion as to whether a judgment or writ of error should be reversed or affirmed, and there is no prospect of a change 'of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed, so that the litigation may not be unduly prolonged.
A Writ of Error to the Criminal Court' of Record' for Duval County; J. M. Peeler, Judge.
Affirmed.
Austin Miller, Wm. A. Hallowes, Jr., and Miles W. Lewis, for Plaintiff in Error;
Rivers Buford, Attorney General, and Marvin C. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff in error was convieted of' manslaughter upon an- information charging in effect that "William Meier by his careless, culpably negligent handling, operating and driving of" an- automobile upon the public streets of the city of Jacksonville, Florida, "caused said automobile to collide with one John Austin Moore," inflicting divers mortal wounds upon the head and body of John Austin Moore, of which Moore died; and that the said William Meier, in the manner and form aforesaid by and through his culpable negligence, the said John Austin Moore did unlawfully kill, contrary to the statute, &c.
On writ of error many assignments of error are argued, but they do not require extended discussion. The charge is legally sufficient under the law defining manslaughter as a predicate for the conviction; the evidence is ample to sustain the verdict and no material or harmful errors appear to prejudice the .rights, of the. defendant at the trial. The charges given considered as a whole are not materially erroneous -or-unfair to the defendant, .and the..rulings,.on the'ádinissión'of' evidence and the conduct of the trial.were not prejíidiéial and harmful if' erroneous, and no substantial error of procedure is made to appear. .
Affirmed.
Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, Browne and West, J. J., concur.