Volume 30 — Florida Reports

<p>Appeal from tlie Circuit Court for Alachua county.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough county.</p> <p>STATEMENT.</p> <p>The testimony in this case, which was tried in the Circuit Court in December, 1891, is as follows :</p> <p>E. J. Bowen, a witness for the State, testified that he saw deceased, Jonathan A. Brown, on the morning of June 15th, 1890, when he got up ; saw nothing remarkable about his health, it was good ; he and Brown had been working together for about two wTeeks, and were rooming together at the house of Mrs. Hale, in Ybor City; Brown was a very"hard working man, and about sixty years old. After breakfast Brown went to Ybor City, returning near dinner time; he and witness ate dinner together; witness could see nothing remarkable about Brown; he ate dinner all right, as far as witness could see. After dinner they walked out of the dining room, and entered their room, and witness commenced writing, and Brown lay down on a small bed, the head of which was towards the north, to have a nap, the door of the room being open. Just as Brown had lain down, and witness had commenced to write, witness heard some one on the “stoop-way,” but paid no attention to it until the question: Where is Brown? was asked, when witness turned and saw defendant at the threshold of the door, and replied: “Lying on the bed.” “All he had to do,” says the witness, “was to turn round, and saw Brown.” -He said: “Bo I owe you anything Mr. Brown?” Brown said: “You do.” Then defendant said: “You God darned son of a bitch,” and struck him. Witness jumped from the table, but before he could get to the defendant he struck Brown the second blow. Brown was lying on his bed on his side, so that it would fetch the left side up so that the left cheek received the blow. Then witness put his hand on defendant’s shoulder and said: “Mr. Baker, this wont do!” Baker then turned and said: “You damned son of a bitch, if you want any more come out here and I will give it to you.” Witness then turned around to see Brown, and “found him in a dying condition, his under jaw fallen down. I saw he was mortally wounded, at least that was my judgment.. I put my hand under his jaw and raised him up so as he could get his breath, if he had any to get, and I raised him up. And as I raised him, Itsaw that death had set in.” Witness then went to the door and hallooed for those around to come and assist, called for McDonald, Barksdale and Jones, who were in speaking distance. Witness remained with Brown for some time. He did not rally, but died. This was on Sunday, June 15th, 1890, in Ybor, Hillsborough county, Florida.</p> <p>On cross-examination the witness said: “Brown ■was in good health all the time he knew him; could not say what his condition was that Sunday morning when he returned from Ybor City, except that he appeared in good health; couldnt say that he was intoxicated; did not know that his health was injured by habits of intoxication; had known him about a year. Brown had worked for witness in Titusville; witness did not kijow his habits. The room was about 12 wide by 14 feet long. The door faced north, and there was just room between the partition of the house and the door to admit a single bed. When the door opened, it opened right back against the bed. The writing table was in the further end of the room, which would,bring his back to the door as it opened. Witness could not see that Baker had anything in his hand; he- hit Brown with his fist. Witness did not resume writing between Baker’s inquiry and his striking. Witness does not think his back was to Baker and Brown at any time while they were speaking, but thinks his whole undivided attention was on them. Brown was in a lying condition when Baker struck the second time lying down. t Witness says he testified at the preliminary examination that Brown might Jiave been getting up when Baker struck him. Witness should judge Brown’s head was four inches above the pillow, but would not say for certain; would not say it under oath, but such was his opinion. Brown had been lying down probably about a half hour before Baker inquired for him. Witness couldn’t say whether or not Brown was intoxicated on Sunday. In reply to the question, if he had: not on the preliminary examination stated that Baker, after getting outside, had said : “My name is Baker, from South Car-</p> <p>olina, and if you want any more of me come outside,” witness said: It is impossible for any human being to recollect every word and everything done so long ago, and one word might have been changed, and not materially changed; possibly I might have said so; I won’t say I said so. It is so long ago my memory isn’t certain. He said: “If you want any more come out and I will give it to you.”</p> <p>On the re-direct, the witness was asked if he was positive the defendant used the vile epithet mentioned' in the direct examination, lie replied: “Yes, sir, he used it.”</p> <p>Question. You state it on your oath ?</p> <p>Answer. “Yes, sir, as near as I can recollect. It is impossible to tell exactly. I defy any man to do it.” Being asked, on re-cross, if he had testified on the preliminary examination that it was used, replied: “I did, if my memory serves me right.”</p> <p>J. D. McDonald, a witness for the State, testified that he knew defendant and knew Brown. Brown died between 2 and 3 o’clock, June 15th, 1890, in Ybor City ; did not see him die. Did not see Baker that day ; heard Baker’s voice after the occurrence. ‘ ‘ I heard Baker say, with an oath : ‘ My name is' Baker, from South Carolina ; if you want any more come out and I will give it to you.’ ” Thinks the oath was, “ Gfod damn your soul;’ ’ didn’t pay much attention to it, but there was an oath ; it might have b'een, “You damn son of a bitch.” Witness presumes Baker was on the piazza or just off of it. It was Baker’s voice. Witness was lying down and lived in a house about twenty feet from that which Brown lived in.</p> <p>John A.-Jackson, a witness for the State, testified that he was a physician and surgeon, and had been one between five and six years, and was a graduate from the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in New York City. Was called upon to make a post mortem examination of the body of the deceased, and examined the whole body thoroughly externally, then opened the chest and examined the heart, and then opened the skull and examined the brain. There were two slight bruises on his person ; the skin was knocked off on the cheek, very superficial, about the size of a dime, and the upper lip was cut on the underside about three-, quarters of an inch, or an inch, not extending through the lip. Found some little irregularity about the-valves of the heart, some chalky deposits.</p> <p>.Question. Anything necessarily fatal about the heart ?</p> <p>Answer. There were signs of heart disease. I saw nothing about them to cause his death. Found large quantities of blood at the base of the brain, loose, extending down the lower part of the neck. ■ Did not examine the arteries or veins, as everything was so discolored. There were signs of a blood vessel being-ruptured. These blood vessels rupture from, disease or accelerated heart action, as a rule, both go together ; or it might be brought about from the force of a blow. Whether it would be the force of a blow, or the concussion from a blow, that would be more apt to cause rupture, would depend' upon the point of the injury. It is possible for these vessels to be ruptured without breaking a bone. Brown seemed to be hardly past middle life, should say at least fifty. Naturally the veins or arteries of a man of that age would probably be a little more brittle than in a younger man, though you might examine a man at that age and find them perfectly natural. The chances are about even at that age. From his examination of the person of' Brown, witness would say that hemorrhage at the base-of the brain brought about his death.</p> <p>Question. Can you state what would produce that hemorrhage ?</p> <p>Answer. As I told you before, it-might be caused' by a severe blow, or some excitement causing-action of the heart.</p> <p>Cross - examination : The first examination was. simply external. Dr. J. P. Wall aided in opening the chest and skull, the internal examination. The first examination was the day of the death, and the second, or internal, was the next day. Found the valves of the heart diseased to some extent. Can’t tell what particular valve now, it is so long ago. Remember distinctly finding chalky deposits. - They were small white deposits, probably two or three at most, not larger than the size of a half of a pea, and besides there was some roughness of the valves, which would naturally be smooth, showing some impairment of these valves. Did not discover what veins or arteries were ruptured which caused the effusion of blood at the*base of the brain. On account of the discoloration could not tell whether these veins or arteries were diseased. ■ In witness’ opinion, it would be very improbable that two blows upon the face and the parts of the-face, as testified to by him, and leaving the marks seen there, should produce death. The cut on the lip was on the inside of the upper lip ; it was caused by the man’s teeth; be bad sharp teeth; witness examined them ; they were plain, ordinary teeth, perfectly firm and well worn, giving a smooth horizontal surface, making them pretty sharp, worn smooth and flat on the edge either from age or the use of a pipe.</p> <p>Re-direct examination: Question. I believe you stated in the direct • examination that the bursting of those blood vessels in the brain might be occasioned by excitement of the heart, or some sudden blow.</p> <p>Question. In case of a blow, would the arteries or blood vessels be broken on the side next the blow, or on the opposite side ?</p> <p>Answer. I think it would not make any difference at all. I don’t really think — it is very improbable that a blow on the face would rupture a blood vessel in the brain. The face has more or less springs in it.</p> <p>Question. Will you state it as your medical opinion that those blood vessels were either broken from sudden excitement of the heart, or some blow ?</p> <p>Answer. I gave those as the two most probable causes. As to what was the real cause I can not tell.</p> <p>TESTIMONY FOE DEFENDANT.</p> <p>L. W. Lawson testified he had known Brown about two months before his death, and saw him about eight or nine o’clock of the morning of the day he died. Witness was a bar tender at Sendoya’s, and Brown was in there that morning, and Brown.asked witness if the latter had any ice water, and witness replied that the ice had melted out of it. Brown replied that he guessed it would do, and said: “Pour it on my head; it feels as if it would burst.” He also said he had been on a “kind of a turn around;” on a drunk last night, and was top heavy. He also wanted another drink to straighten him up, and witness gave him a glass of beer; he had several glasses; he told witness to pour the water on the lower part of the back of his head. Brown remained in the saloon three quarters of an hour, and took five or six drinks of beer while there.</p> <p>Salam Austin, who had known Brown a month or two before his death, saw him at the same time in Sendoya’s bar room, and heard him complain of having a heaviness in his head, and ask the bar tender to pour the ice water on his head, and say that he had been on a right smart of a time, and that he was feeling bad. Brown held his head down and the bar tender poured the water, and asked him if it did any good, and Brown replied : “I don’t know; I feel very bad still; give me another glass of beer.”</p> <p>Gfeorge P. Barksdale testified that he saw Brown on the day of his death, in Ybor City, between 11 and 12 o’clock, in the yard where he, Brown, was boarding, and thought he was drunk; Brown was coming around the house, and walked, like he had been drinking — like a drunken man would. Witness did not know that he could describe how Brown walked, as witness had never got drunk. Brown staggered some; had known him about a year, and was with him about six months at one time.</p> <p>John P. Wall testified that he was a physician and surgeon, and had practiced thirty-three years in Florida and Virginia; he assisted Dr. Jackson in the examination of the body of Brown; that the heart showed signs of chalky deposits in the valves, at the tips of the valves; particularly of the aorta, the main blood vessel going to the heart; this valve is semi-lunar, and right in the center was a chalky deposit. In the aorta was a patch of--disease, as we term it, so of course it was my inference that that disease extended into the arteries of the skull, particularly about the base of the brain. There was an effusion of blood at the base of the brain, between the brain and the line of the skull. The pain in the back of the head complained of by Brown, as testified to by Austin and Lawton, would be a symptom of congestion about the base of the brain, possibly amounting to a slight effusion.</p> <p>Question. Would that congestion be increased or ' diminished by the use of liquor, such as beer ?</p> <p>Answer. “It would cause the heart to throw the blood with more force.” Witness states he examined the wounds on the face of Brown, and that in his opinion, as a medical expert, two ordinary blows that would cause these wounds did not result in the death of Brown.</p> <p>Cross-examination. Being asked if the excitement caused by a fight and a man striking a blow would not necessarily increase the congestion, of which the complaints made by Brown was a symptom, he replied: “It might, though not always, because you know when some men get mad they turn pale, and some 'get kind of red.” Asked if the reception by the deceased, supposing him to be suffering from congestion of the brain, of two blows on the face or head, accompanied by the excitement of a fight, would not necessarily increase the congestion, he answered : “It might tend to that. I will try to explain: There are two forms of congestion, one called active, caused by increased action of the heart, and another passive. As a rule the action of the heart is weakened in the passive, particularly if there is any fright connected with it; people'sometimes faint from.fright. The circulation of the blood is more sluggish in the diseased part, or the part previously congested. The passive character is not from lack of blood, but more blood is drawn into the head.” In reply to the question, if it would necessarily follow from the fact that Brown was suffering from headache, such as described, that he was suffering from congestion of the brain; or if it might not follow from the effects .of drinking, he said: “If the autopsy showed an effusion of blood, I should say he was suffering from congestion, as it did in this case. When I use the term congestion of the brain, I mean the membrane about the brain, not so much the brain itself; the membrane between the brain and the skull.”</p> <p>Question. Supposing the congestion was of the brain itself, how long would a person live V</p> <p>Answer. Congestion of the brain is not of very frequent occurrence.</p> <p>Question. When it does occur, is it considered by the medical fraternity as fatal, or not immediately fatal?</p> <p>Answer. The whole brain being congested ?</p> <p>Question. Yes.</p> <p>Answer. It does not occur.</p> <p>Question. With the membrane of the brain congested, as you say you judge this man’s to be, would that be of itself fatal necessarily ?</p> <p>Answer. No; not unless followed by rupture or inflammation. Congestion is the first stage of the inflammatory process.</p> <p>Re-direct examination. Question. After making an examination of this man’s body, in your opinion, did those two blows upon the face cause that man’s death ?</p> <p>Answer. The blow upon the face, of itself, would hardly have produced this. If there was a blow upon the face "when a man fell and struck something hard, we might have this condition, or if his head was resting on a hard substance when he received the blow, rve might have this condition. I would not say positively that the blow had nothing to do with the rupture, though I think it very improbable.</p> <p>The defendant then' made a statement as follows: “This man Brown had been in my employ, for which I had paid him, and we came to a settlement, I think it was the 8th day of May; there were thirty-one cents due him. He said; ‘Mr. Baker, I’ve been looking over the labor, and I think you ought to pay me something extra.’ I handed him a five dollar bill and said: ‘Are you satisfied?’ he said. T am,’ and that was the last business transaction, or transaction of any kind, we ever had. We never had fallen out, to my knowl•edge. I was uniformly kind to him from the time he came to work for me in March. I had even paid a fine for him when he was prosecuted. But this Sunday morning I was lying at home asleep on the sofa, when a boy brought a letter that Brown had written to a lady, charging me with embezzlement, which was very insulting. I went there and asked if Brown was in; Brown answered: ‘Yes, I’m in.'’ Bowen was sitting just opposite, with his back to me, writing. I didn’t see Brown. I said: ‘Where is Brown?’ He answered, ‘Here I am.’ I walked around. All my purpose was to have an understanding. I said: ‘Hid you say I owed you money and wouldn’t pay it?’ He said: T did.’ By this time Brown was nearly in a sitting position, and when he answered me T did,’ I struck him twice; not heavy blows, because he wus too near me. Bowen spoke — he didn’t put his hand on me — and said: ‘ Baker, this will never do.’ His voice brought me to myself. Iwenbout, not thinking Brown -was hurt. Wheu I got out I said: “If you want any •satisfaction you can come outside ; my name is Baker, from South Carolina.’ I walked off and did not see him any more. Subsequently I heard Brown had died. I came to town to see my lawyer; gave myself up, and authorized my lawyer to get a physician to hold an autopsy. I had no enmity against him, and can say that if that man had come to me, instead of sending a boy, and asked for a couple of dollars, he would have .got it, as he had done before. I had been a friend to him continually.”</p> <p>The judge charged the jury, to which charge there was no exception, and the jury returned a verdict of .guilty of manslaughter in the fourth degree, and a motion for a new trial having been made and overruled, the court sentenced the accused to imprisonment in tlje county iail for the term of six months, and to the payment of a fine of five hundred dollars ; and, in the event the fine should not be paid at the expiration of the six months, to six months’ longer imprisonment in lieu of said fine.</p> <p>The other facts in the case are stated in the opinion ■of the court.</p>

<p>Wait of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts in tiie case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Baker county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of .the court.</p>

Tills is a case of original jurisdiction. STATEMENT. Held: when that client was brought by the officer to his place of business to give the prisoner an opportunity of conferring with his chosen counsel.

STATEMENT. On the loth day of April, A. D. 1884, Thomas N. Anderson and C. O. Livingston signed articles of agreement under seal, by the terms of which Anderson covenanted and agreed to build for Livingston a brick building in the city of Jacksonville, according to the plans and specifications attached to the agreement, to do the work in a faithful and workmanlike manner, and to 1 ecome responsible for all labor and material necessary for the construction of said building.

<p>.Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval county. STATEMENT. The testimony in behalf of the State was as follows : Neal Mitchell, M. D., testified that one March Scrog-gins did come to his death in said Duval county, from peritonitis consequent upon a gun-shot wound ; that said wound was inflicted on the eleventh day of September, A. D. 1891, and that death ensued therefrom on the 23d day of September aforesaid.

<p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p>

<p>Writ oí Error to the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>Tlie facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p> <p>Motion to quash Writ of Error and *%/. Fa.</p>

<p>An appeal will not be dismissed on motion of an appellee, for laches and irregularities, not harmful to him, where he has delayed making his motion for more than a year after the appellant has submitted the cause on its merits, and for nearly two years after the term to which the appeal was brought, and of which appeal he had due notice, and for more than two years from the entry of the judgment appealed from; within which last period appellant might have brought a writ of error liad the appeal been dismissed within it.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam county.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Writ of Error to die Circuit Court for Alachua county. STATEMENT. The testimony, in so far as it need be given, is, in substance as follows : Rachel Wilson, the wife of the deceased, ivas the only witness to the homicide.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hills-borough county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the ■court.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hills-borough county. STATEMENT. The plaintiff in error, Huararcher B. Blount, was indicted in June, A. D. 1891, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, for Polk county, for the murder of Robt. L. Parker.

STATEMENT. This is an original proceeding by mandamus instituted by the relator, George P. Fowler, asking for a peremptory writ to require the Hon. Jesse J. Finley, Judge of the Circuit Court for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of the State, to vacate and set aside an order made by him as such judge on the 24th day of February, A. D. 1892, debarring said relator from the office and privileges of an attorney at law, and to allow him to exercise all the duties and privileges as an…

<p>Attorney, Disbarment of — Practice—Proof of Bad Motive Necessary.</p> <p>1. Charges preferred against an attorney for the purpose of disbarring him should be clear, specific and circumstantial, and should be stated with great particularity, that the attorney may know how to defend.</p> <p>'3. In the trial of a proceeding for disbarment of an attorney, the judge, being the arbiter of both the law and facts, should not delegate the taking of evidence therein to a master, commissioner or any one else, but should personally hear the evidence of the witnesses for and against the accused, so that in lending or withholding credence to it he may be governed by the same rules and reasons that Influence juries when sitting as triers of facts, from an observance of the manner and deportment of the witnesses.</p> <p>'3. Where the acts charged against an attorney in a proceeding for disbarment are proved to have been committed, but the proof fails entirely to disclose any bad or fraudulent motive for the commission thereof, either from the act itself or from other circumstances, disbarment is not authorized. State ex rel. Rude vs. Young, 30 Fla.. 85 11 South. Rep., 514, cited and approved.</p> <p>■Í. While the interlineation into a decree, after it has received the judicial signature, of immaterial words ■ patently omitted therefrom through clerical oversight, may not, in the absence of proof of a bad motive or fraudulent design in the attorney who perpetrates it, because for disbarment, still any manner of tampering with the decree of a court after it receives the sanction of the judge's signature, no matter in how small a particular, and no matter how innocent or immaterial the alteration may be, is highly reprehensible and deserves severe punishment. In recognition of the sanctity of judicial decrees, chancery court rule 87 has been provided, requiring an order of the court for the correction of clerical mistakes therein, arising from any accidental slip or omission; and an attorney who attempts to accomplish correction otherwise should be dealt with summarily and severely.</p>

Motion to dismiss Appeal. STATEMENT. There is a motion to dismiss an appeal taken from an order of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough county dismissing an appeal prosecuted to that court from an order of the County Judge of the same county, in the exercise of his probate powers.

STATEMENT. Frederick A. Wolfe and Benjamin AM. Mayson, partners doing business in tlie firm name of F. A. AA'olfe & Co., appellees in this court, sued the American Lead Pencil Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, in tlie Circuit Court of tlie Fifth Judicial Circuit, for Levy county. Tlie declaration filed in the case contains three counts.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange county..</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough county.</p> <p>Motion to vacate Sujjersecleas.</p>

<p>1. In a suit against an executor to recover commissions on sums of money collected by the plaintiff for the executor’s testator in his lifetime, after the establishment by proper proof of an agency to collect money for said testator, it is competent for the plaintiff to testify as to the amount of money collected, and also, in the absence of an express agreement fixing the amount of compensation, as to what is a reasonable compensation for collecting the same. This would not be testifying to a transaction or communication with the deceased, and prohibited by the statute.</p> <p>2. Books of account of either party in which charges and entries have been originally made are admissible in evidence, their credibility to be judged of by the jury; but before such books are admissible in evidence, they are to be submitted to the in - spection of the trial judge, accompanied with proof that the entries therein were made by the party contemporaneous with the transactions therein recorded, in due course of business, and if they exhibit a fair register of the daily business of the party, and appear to have been honestly and regularly kept, they should be submitted in evidence to be considered by the jury.</p> <p>3. In suits against the estates of deceased persons, a plaintiff or party in interest is not prohibited by the provisions of Chapter 1983, Acts of 1874, R. S., section 1095, excluding certain parties from testifying against tlie estates of deceased persons, from accompanying the offer of books of original entry in evidence, with a suppletory oath that the books so offered are the books of original entry of the contemporaneous transactions therein set down of the party in whose behalf they are offered.</p> <p>4. It is well-settled as a principle of law that where one performs services for another at his -request, or where services are rendered by one person for another without his expressed request, but with his knowledge and under circumstances which give rise to the presumption of a promise to pay for them, reasonable compensation may be recovered; the liability in such a case is founded upon a presumption of law that the party benefited undertakes to pay reasonable compensation for such services, but this presumption is liable to be rebutted by the circumstances of each case.</p>

<p>Where the judgment as to the value of an animal alleged to have been killed by a railroad company exceeds its market value as shown by the testimony, it is excessive and will be set aside.</p>

This is a case of original jurisdiction. . The following’, omitting the certificates of the Secretary of Stg.te to exhibits A and B, are the pleadings upon the motion to quash the alternative writ herein : The State of Florida to James F. Johnson, Greeting : Whereas, It has been suggested by the petition of the Attorney-General of the State of Florida that heretofore, to-wit: On the' 29th day of October, A. D. 1892, his Excellency, Francis P. Fleming, Governor of Florida,…

<p>The order of removal appears in the former opinion in this cause, {ante p. 433.) The Governor’s notification to Johnson of the cause of suspension is as follows :</p> <p>State of Florida,</p> <p>Executive Department, Tallahassee, Fla , Oct. 29, 1892.</p> <p> James E. Johnson, Esq., Jacksonville, Fla.: </p> <p>Sir — Upon my return to the capitol I find the letters,, affidavits and arguments of counsel in your behalf, all. of which have been duly considered.</p> <p>There is no room for doubt that the Constitution places in the hands of the Executive the power to suspend all officers that have been appointed or elected who are not liable to impeachment, without reference to when the Legislature may meet, the adjournment of the next session of the Senate terminating the period of suspension, unless the Senate should remove the officer so suspended. This authority involves, as well, a duty on the part of the Executive to exercise> such power whenever he finds that an officer is guilty ■of conduct which brings his case within the Constitutional grounds set forth for which suspension may be made.</p> <p>Twelve persons, to-wit: Messrs. Porcher L’Engle, I. L. Harris, Gf. E. Wilson, D. E. Thompson, R. E. Bowden, J. A. Peterson, E. F. L’Engle, G. Muller, Uriah Bowden, T. H. Livingston, E. W. Gillen and •Claude L’Engle, make affidavit that, when Mr. Porcher L’Engle made you the tender of money to pay the poll taxes for a large number of persons, he demanded that you receive the list of names and the money and make out receipts at your leisure and send them to the parties whose poll tax was thus attempted to be paid, only insisting that such receipts be dated as of September 3, A. U. 1892. Messrs. Porcher L’Engle, ' George E. Wilson, F. F. L’Engle, D. E. Thompson, Clauae L’Engle, T. H. Livingston, Isaac L. Harris, Uriah Bowden and R. F. Bowden add in further affidavits that Mr. L’Engle did not request you to give or send such receipts to him. Messrs. P. B. Bedford, William H. McCurdy, M. Johnson, R. C. Scott, Pleasant A. Holt and John ■ Price make affidavit that, in making the tender, ,Mr. L’Engle demanded that the receipts be delivered to him ; but they differ otherwise as to the demand for the receipts. Mr. P. B. Bedford says that Mr. L’Engle stated: “I want their receipts to-day.” Messrs. Johnson, Holt and McCurdy say that Mr. L’Engle demanded the receipts be issued or delivered to him dated that day ; and Mr. Scott says that Mr. L’Engle demanded that the receipts be made out “when he (yon) could do so,”whether that day or not, and when issued they should be dated September 3. Mr. Price qualities his testimony as follows: “I could not pretend to report the exact words used by Mr. L! Engle, but the impression made upon my mind was that he demanded that the receipts when issued be dated that day, and when the receipts were issued be delivered to him. Nearly all state in substance that there was considerable noise and confusion at the time. On this point Mr. Joseph A. Jackson says there was so much disorder and noise in the room that it would be difficult for any person to tell exactly what other persons were saying.</p> <p>While the testimony on this point is somewhat conflicting, the decided weight of testimony is that the tender was not coupled with the demand that the receipts be delivered to Mr. L’Engle; besides which it is not reasonable to suppose that Mr. L’Engle would have made such demand in the light of my instructions to you, of which he was advised. Nor does it anywhere appear that you offered to accept the taxes and send the receipts to the persons for whom paid, or that your refusal to receive the poll taxes so tendered you was based upon the demand of Mr. L’ Engle that the receipts be delivered to him; but the ground upon which you refused was, as you stated, that your office was closed, and would not be open again till 9 o’clock Monday morning.</p> <p>1 can not accept as a sufficient excuse for your refusal to receive the poll taxes tendered that some persons on the list were dead or not liable to pay a poll tax _ (this you could not know at .the time), or that yon did not have time on that day to examine the assessments, or to see from whom poll taxes were due. It is not denied that the poll taxes were due from a large majority of those on the list. There remained still more than eleven hours of the time within which the poll taxes might be paid to enable persons to vote at the State election, whereby a large number would have qualified, even if it were true that you could not properly continue such examination after that date.</p> <p>The facts are that notwithstanding you had good, reason to know that a large number of the citizens of your county had not paid their poll taxes and that the time within which such poll taxes could be paid to enable them to vote at the State election would soon terminate, you unreasonably restricted your office-hours to three hours a day, continuing such restrictions up to and on the last day when the payment of a poll tax would enable a person to vote at the State election, wmll knowing that a large number of persons w'ould thereby be disfranchised. On such day a few minutes after 12 o’clock, and more than eleven hours prior to the expiration of the time limited by law, a tender of the poll tax was made to you at your office for a large number of the citizens of your county, vffiieh you refused to receive, whereby they were deHied the right of suffrage, one among the highest nights and privileges of an American citizen ; this by an officer of the State and himself a candidate for reelection. Such conduct constitutes gross neglect of duty in office, for which you are suspended by executive order, herewith inclosed.</p> <p>Respectfully,</p> <p>P. P. Fleming, Governor.</p> <p>The other facte are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>This is a case of original jurisdiction by writ of habeas corpus.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>1. The Board of County Commissioners under the authority conferred by sections 865, 866 R. S., to grant a permit to sell liquors, wines or beer, has no judicial power or discretion to dispense with, or add to, any of the essential statutory requirements in reference to the petitfon presented for that purpose*, the power of the board in this respect being confined to the recertainment of the facts as to the identity of the names on the registration list of the election district with those signed, to the petition, the facts of publication, and whether or not the number of the signers is a majority of those on said registration list.</p> <p>2. A permit granted by the Board of County Commissioners to sell liquors, wines or beer in an election district, on a petition, signed by less than a majority of the registered voters of said, district, as shown by the registration list on file at the date of application is void, and a tax collector will not be compeUed. by mandamus to issue a license to an applicant on such, permit.</p> <p>3. The municipal ordinance brought in question in this case held. to be void for reasons stated in Ex parte Theisen, decided at, this term. (30 Fla., 529, 11 South. Rep., 901). ^</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Putnam county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>1. Under the act of 1887, Chapter 3740, Laws of Florida, the killing of live stock by a railway engine, cars or train is prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the company operating the engine or train, and where the testimony shows that live stock was killed by a train of cars on a railroad, and there is nothing in the evidence to relieve the killing from the statutory presumption that it was negligently done, it is sufficient to sustain a judgment against the company.</p> <p>2. The findings of a referee on the facts will be accorded in the appellate court the same weight and consideration as the verdict of a jury, where the testimony is conflicting, involving the credibility of witnesses.</p> <p>3. The finding of a referee as to the value of property not in excess of the market value as shown by clear and uncontradicted evidence, will not be set aside on the ground that it is excessive.</p>

This is a case of original jurisdiction. STATEM ENT. The proceeding here is in quo toarranlo on the information of the Attorney-General hied in this court on the 6th day of July, A. I). 1892, on behalf of the people of the State of Florida, and against A. R. Philips.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough county.</p> <p>Upon the question of the disqualification of the presiding judge.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns county.</p> <p>The facts of the case are stated in -the opinion.</p>

<p>This is a case of original jurisdiction;</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion'of the court.</p>