Case Name: State of Florida, ex rel., Jack Stillman, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. E. Merritt, as Sheriff of Duval County, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1923-07-14
Citations: 86 Fla. 164
Docket Number: 
Parties: State of Florida, ex rel., Jack Stillman, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. E. Merritt, as Sheriff of Duval County, Defendant in Error.
Judges: ••"Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, West and Terrell, J. J., concur. . ■ -
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 164–178

Head Matter:
State of Florida, ex rel., Jack Stillman, Plaintiff in Error, v. R. E. Merritt, as Sheriff of Duval County, Defendant in Error.
Opinion Filed July 14, 1923.
Petition for Rehearing Granted November 13, 1923.
Judgment Re-affirmed January 28, 1924.
1. The Court takes judicial knowledge that the fall term of the-Circuit Court for Duval County in 1922 began on the fourth Monday in November of that year and ended before the last Monday in March, 1923. That the spring term of the Circuit Court for that county in 1923 began on the third Monday in May.
2. Where a bill of exceptions is made up and tendered to the judge .trying the cause, after the adjournment of the court at which said cause was tried, and no order is made by the judge during the term at which the cause was tried extending the time for the presentation and settlement of a bill of exceptions, the so-called bill of exceptions, settled and signed under such circumstances, is not a proper nor authoritative nor legal certification to this court of the matters m pais during the trial of the cause.
3. The judgment of the trial court is presumed to be correct and entered in accordance with the essential requirements of the law.
On Application for Rehearing.
In the Fourth Judicial Circuit consisting of Duval and other counties, there is a separate Circuit Judge for Duval County, and there is no presumption that when “the time for holding” the Circuit Court in another county in the circuit arrives, the term'of the Circuit Court for Duval County has been adjourned, since the term of the Circuit Court in Duval County may be continued by the Circuit Judge for Duval County even though a term of the Circuit Court in another county of the circuit is being or has been held by another Circuit Judge; and when it appears by a bill of exceptions that it was authenticated during the term of the court in Duval County in which the trial was had, even though when so authenticated the time had arrived or passed for holding a term of court in another county of the circuit, the bill of exceptions may be considered by the Appellate Court, when it does not appear that the term of the court in Duval County had been duly terminated before the authentication of the bill of exceptions, or when if the court has adjourned for the term, it appears that an order extending the time for presenting the bill of exceptions for authentication after adjournment of the term, was duly made and entered and complied with as required by Rule 97 of the Circuit Court Rules.
On Rehearing.
1. In a preliminary examination before a committing magistrate “it is a sufficient reason for holding accused to answer, that the evidence adduced on the preliminary examination shows that an offense has been committed, and that there is probable cause to believe accused to be guilty thereof; and it is not necessary that the evidence should be of such a nature as would be necessary to convict accused upon his final trial.”
2. The Constitution of Florida forbids only “unreasonable searches and seizures” of “persons, houses, papers and effects.”
3. Section G029, Revised General Statutes, 1920, provides: “It shall be lawful for any sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, city marshal, police officer or other executive officer in this State .to arrest and take into custody, without a warrant, any person who, in the presence of such officer, violates any of the penal laws of this State.”
4. Where an arrest without a warrant is allowed by law, as for an offense being committed or threatened in the presence of an officer authorized by law to make arrests for such offense, a reasonable search and seizure that is properly incident to a lawful arrest, may be made in a reasonable and proper manner by the officer making the lawful arrest; but the search and seizure should not be inappropriate to the reasonable requirements for making effective a lawful arrest.
5. In a preliminary examination before a committing magistrate, even though it appear that the arrest of the accused was made in an unauthorized manner, if there is sufficient legal evidence adduced of statements made by the accused at the time of his arrest, and other evidence showing evident guilt 'of the accused of the offense charged, independent of what was done by the sheriff in making the arrest, that justified the committing magistrate in committing the accused in default of bail, the accused' will not be discharged on habeas corpus.
A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.
Affirmed.
Hartridge & Stillman, for Plaintiff in Error;'
G. M. Cooper and George G. Bedell, crnnAci cwriae, upon rehearing.
Rivers Buford, Attorney General, and M. G. McIntosh, Assistant, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
Ellis, J.
Jack Stillman was confined in the county jail by the sheriff of Duval County under the authority of a writ of commitment, which was presumably issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, committing Stillman to the custody of the sheriff to-await the action of the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County upon a charge valid in form and substance of the violation of a criminal law.
' The petitioner applied to the judges of, the Circuit Court for Duval County for a.writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was confined and restrained, of his liberty in the county jail of Duval County, by virtue of a certain commitment, by the Sheriff of. Duval County; that a certified copy of the commitment was attached to the petition and marked exhibit "A" and by-special reference prayed to be made a part of the petition. It may be noted here that no copy of any commitment • was attached to the petition, so that the record does not disclose the nature and character of the crime with which the petitioner was charged.
The .petition also-alleges that at a preliminary hearing before the county judge "certain testimony was adduced upon which the commitment was based," that a "copy of said testimony" was attached and marked exhibit "B" and prayed to be made a part of the petition. The copy of the testimony was not attached to the petition.
The petition alleges that petitioner "is informed by counsel and verily believes that the testimony referred to did not disclose sufficiently to find that probable cause existed to bind your petitioner over to the action of the Criminal Court of Record for Duval County, Florida, and that the action of the said Hon. John AY. DuBose, County Judge, in forming such conclusions were erroneous."
A writ of habeas corpus was issued by Hon. Daniel A. Simmons, Circuit Judge, upon the petition, returnable February 16, 1923, at ten o'clock in the forenoon.
The. cause coming on to be heai'd "upon the writ of habeas corpus> the return thereto and the evidence adduced at the trial" the court ordered the petitioner to be remanded to the custody of the sheriff. The court made an order allowing a writ of error to be taken by the petitioner.
The record shows no return made by the sheriff to the writ of habeas carpus.
The transcript of the record contains a bill of exceptions which recites that at a term of the Circuit Court held at Jacksonville on February 16, 1923, "sitting in chambers" .the case of Jack Stillman, plaintiff, and R. E. Merritt as Sheriff, of Duval County, Florida, defendant, came on to be heard. The certificate of the judge recites that on the 24th day of February, A. D. 1923, at the term aforesaid, the court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant and against the petitioner and that on the 25th day of April, A. D. 1923, the "petitioner" proposed "this his bill of exceptions" to the opinions and decisions of the judge and requested him to sign the same which, he did on the 25th day of April, A. D. 1923. There is a certificate also that the bill of exceptions contains all the testimony adduced before the judge.
The court takes judicial knowledge that the fall term of the Circuit Court for Duval County began on the fourth Monday in November, 1922, and ended before the last Monday in March, 1923. That the spring term began the third Monday in May, 1923. The bill of exceptions also recites that this case was heard by the judge in chambers on the 16th day of February, 1923, and that the order remanding the petitioner was made on the 24th day of February, 1923. The bill of exceptions was presented for settlement on the 24th day of April, 1923, but the fall term of the Circuit Court for Duval County expired by limitation of láw on or before the last Monday in March.
It follows that the term of the court at which this case was heard had expired when the bill of exceptions was presented for settlement and signed by the judge.
There is no order in the record nor. recital in the bill of exceptions showing that extra time was allowed after the adjournment of court for the settlement and signing of a bill of exceptions, therefore what occurred in pais at the hearing of this cause is not properly nor authoritatively nor legally certified to this court. See Washington v. State, 48 Fla. 62, 37 South. Rep. 573; Lamb v. State, 50 Fla. 106, 38 South. Rep. 906; Hainlin v. Budge, 56 Fla. 342, 47 South. Rep. 825; Bardin v. L'Engle, 13 Fla. 571; Webster v. Barnett, 17 Fla. 272; Potsdamer v. State of Florida, 17 Fla. 895; Bush v. State, 21 Fla. 569; Myrick v. Merritt, 21 Fla. 799; Rehfield v. Moore, 76 Fla. 378, 80 South. Rep. 52; Montgomery v. State, 54 Fla. 73, 45 South. Rep. 813; Circuit Court Law Rule No. 97.
The presumption-obtains that the judgment of the Court was correct and entered in accordance with the essential requirements of' the law. See Bailey v. Clark, 6 Fla. 516; Davis v. Horne, 57 Fla. 396, 49 South. Rep. 505; Colson v. State, 51 Fla. 19, 40 South. Rep. 183; Lewis v. State, 55 Fla. 54, 45 South. Rep. 998; Fails v. State; 60 Fla. 8, 53 South. Rep. 612; Ann. Cas. 1912-B 1146 note; Bowen v. Darby, 14 Fla. 202; Stinson v. State, 76 Fla. 421, 80 South. Rep. 506.
No question has been presented or assigned for determination Upon any matter other than should be contained in án authentically prepared and certified bill of exceptions, the judgment of the 'court should therefore be affirmed. See Washington v. State, supra.
So the judgment of the court is affirmed.
•"Taylor, C. J., and Whitfield, West and Terrell, J. J., concur. . -