Volume 50 — Florida Reports

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Columbia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit -Court for Leon County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>1. An indictment should not be quashed on account of any defect in the form thereof, unless- the court shall be of the opinion that the indictment is so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offence.</p> <p>2. This court cannot consider any grounds of objections to the admissibility of evidence, except such as were made in the court below; the plaintiff in error being confined to the specific grounds of objection made by him in the trial court.</p> <p>;3. Where a question to a witness is not improper in itself and does not necessarily call for any illegal or improper evidence, an objection to such question should be overruled.</p> <p>'á. Where an answer to a question presents evidence which is illegal or objectionable on any known ground, the proper practice is a motion to strike it out and have the jury directed not to consider it, the movant specifying hiS' objections to the evidence with like particularity as in objecting to questions.</p> <p>'5. While trial judges should not permit private conversations with them in reference to any question or issue arising in the trial of any criminal cause before them by the prosecuting attorney or anyone else, yet when such conversation relates solely to a request for a temporary adjournment, it is not sufficient ground for reversal.</p> <p>6. Hearsay testimony is properly stricken out on motion.</p> <p>7. Where there is evidence to support the verdict, it will not be disturbed or set aside by an appellate court, as being against the evidence, where its propriety depends entirely upon the credibility of conflicting witnesses.</p>

This case wag decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Bradford County. STATEMENT.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error t-o the Circuit Court for Dade County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Walton County. The facts in the case are stated- in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division R. Writ of Error to the Criminal Court of Record of Hills-borough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court

This case was decided by the court Eh Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Walton County The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>This case was decided by Division A.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Walton County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Walton County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided- by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Manatee-County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Monroe County. i The facts in thg^gase aré stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case wag decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County - The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County. STATEMENT.

<p>1. In a prosecution for homicide instructions asked by the defendant on the subject of self defense which do not include the proposition that the defendant to justify his acts on. the ground of self defense must hare used all reasonabU means within his power and consistent with his own safety, to avoid danger and to avert the necessity of talcing the life of the deceased, a limitation which has been approved by this court in several, cases, are properly refused when the charge given by the court as to self defense was full and correct under the facts of the case.</p> <p>2. In the prosecution of Willie Stafford for homicide where the acts of the participants at the beginning of the fatal encounter are shown in evidence by eye witnesses without material variance, and evidence of threats made by the deceased against the defendant eight days before the difficulty were admitted without objection, and not contradicted, other threats made by the deceased against "one of the ' Staffords” more than fifteen months prior to the encounter were immaterial, and it was not error to exclude testimony as to such prior threats.</p>

<p>A dim carbon copy of the bill of exceptions in the transcript of the record of a criminal cause violates the rule, is not a permanent record and the errors based thereon will not be considered.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>1. The term felony whenever it occurs in the constitution or laws of this State means any criminal offense punishable with death or imprisonment in the State penitentiary.</p> <p>2. Whenever punishment by imprisonment is prescribed by law, and the imprisonment is mot expressly directed to be in the State prison or penitentiary, it means imprisonment in the county jail.</p> <p>3. This court has not appellate jurisdiction in cases of conviction of misdemeanor in the Criminal Courts of Record.</p> <p>4. Where the record shows a want of appellate jurisdiction in this court, the writ of error will be dismissed sua sponte.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County. STATEMENT. At the session of the Florida Legislature of 1905, the following statute was enacted: “An Act to Prohibit Certain Games and Sports on Sunday. Be it Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

His Excellency, N. B. Broward, Governor of Florida. Sir:— We have the honor of acknowledging the receipt of your communication of July 26th, 1905, as follows: “The Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Florida, Tallahassee, Florida.

<p>This case was decided by Division A.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hamilton county.</p>

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hamilton County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court

This case was decided by the Court E'n Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Marion County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Suwannee County. STATEMENT. The defendants in error, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, sued the corporate plaintiff in error, referred to hereafter as the defendant, in the Circuit Court of Suwannee county in an action of trespass on the case and recovered judgment for $235.13, and tbe defendant below brings the case here for review by writ of error.

This case was decided by Division B.. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Osceola County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Orange County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>ON REHEARING.</p> <p>Tbe word “whereupon” when used in a statute does not necessarily mean “immediately.” The word “thereupon” may mean “immediately,” but its effect may be limited by ¡other terms of the statute.</p>

<p>One who applies for and obtains a bill of particulars and stay of proceedings is estopped thereafter to deny jurisdiction over his person.</p>

<p>This case was decided by Division A.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval county.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Marion County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Jackson County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ or Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ óf Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The facts in the ease are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County. STATEMENT.

This case was decided by the Court Bn Banc. Writ of ETror to tbe Circuit Court for Duval County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Osceola County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Volusia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This ease was decided by the Court En Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. STATEMENT. Held: claimed, owned or possessed by said institutions and each and every of them respectively, including all of the books, papers, vouchers and records kept or possessed by them and each and every of them. Section 4.

<p>1. Our statutes permitting amendments of pleadings are very liberal, but the matter of allowing or refusing such amendments must rest largely within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, as that court must determine whether or not the amendment asked for is "necessary for the purpose of determining in the existing suit the real question in controversy between the parties,” and whether or not it has been “duly applied for,” and an appellate court will not disturb the ruling of the trial court either in granting or in denying such application, unless it is plainly made to appear that there has been an abuse of this judicial discretion.</p> <p>2. Requested instructions charging upon the facts of the case are properly refused. To charge the jury otherwise than upon the law of the case would be violaitive of the express provisions of Section 1088 of the Revised Statutes of 1892.</p> <p>3. A party cannot predicate an assignment upon an instruction given to the jury, even though erroneous, where the instruction complained of was too favorable to the party complaining thereof and no injury could have resulted to him therefrom.</p> <p>4. In an action upon a policy of life insurance where one of defendant’s pleas is to the effect that the insured came to his death in consequence of the violation by him of a criminal law of the State of Florida, the burden of proving the defensive matter contained in the plea is cast upon the defendant company, and it must establish such plea by at least a preponderance of the testimony.</p> <p>5. It is unnecessary for the plaintiff in an'action upon an insurance policy to anticipate'defenses and negative them in his declaration, and, even though the plaintiff should do so, it does not shift the burden of proof and it is still incumbent upon the defendant to prove defensive matter.</p> <p>6. The denial of a motion for a continuance by the trial court will not be reversed by an appellate court unless a palpable abuse of judicial discretion is clearly and affirmatively shown by the record.</p> <p>7. Facts submitted by the pleadings ne'ed not be proved, and all the allegations in the declaration which are not denied by plea are admitted to be true.</p> <p>8. Chapter 4173 of the Laws of Florida of 1893 authorizing the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees against life and fire insurance companies in actions upon policies issued by them is constitutional.</p> <p>9. Chapter 4173 of the Laws of Florida of 1893 is not repealed either directly or impliedly by Chapter 4380 of the Laws of Florida of 1895.</p> <p>10. Evidence examined and found sufficient to support the verdict.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Dade County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County. statement. On the 21st of April, 1903, the defendant in error Stanley Adams-, hereinafter called the plaintiff, by W-. A. Adams his next friend, filed his declaration against the plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, containing six counts.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hernando County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Volusia County. STATEMENT.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Duval County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This ease was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Marion County. STATEMENT.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for DeSoto County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>1. Where there are contradictory or inconsistent allegations in a bill, its equity will be tested by the weaker rather than by the stronger allegations.</p> <p>2. A bill to remove a cloud does not lie against a defendant alleged to have possessed himself of certain of the lands, to have leased others of them to other parties and to be otherwise attempting to exercise control of all the lands.</p> <p>3. A bill to; set aside a duly recorded satisfaction of a mortgage on the ground of mistake will not lie against one who purchased under execution sale against the mortgagor, where the mortgagor is not a party, and the purchaser is not shown to be connected with the satisfaction agreement or to have had other than the record knowledge thereof and the only mistake alleged is the reliance by complaint on a statement by the mortgagor and his attorney as to the non-existence of a public record of a judgment affecting the mortgaged property.</p> <p>4. A decree setting aside a mortgage satisfaction agreement and ordering a sale of the mortgagors interest in the mortgaged lands, under a proceeding to which the mortgagor is not a party, will be reversed.</p> <p>5. Where complaint after filing an original bill, an amended bill, an amendment to an amended bill and a second amended bill, fails to state a case, further amendment is not as of course, but in reversing the case the bill is ordered dismissed, without prejudice.</p>

<p>1. Iu equity, as well as at law, a pleading is to be most strongly construed against the pleader thereof, and in passing upon a demurrer to a bill every presumption is against the bill.</p> <p>2. It is incumbent upon a complainant to allege in his bill every fact, clearly and definitely, that is necessary to entitle him to relief; and if he omits essential facts therefrom, or states such facts therein as show that he is not entitled to relief in a court of equity, he must suffer the consequences of his so doing.</p> <p>3. When some allegations in a bill show a case entitling a complainant to some relief, but are contradicted by other allegations in the same bill, and it is impossible for the court to determine the true nature of the case sought to be made by the bill, a demurrer thereto should be sustained.</p> <p>4. If a bill for relief is so vague and indefinite that it does not state any case upon which a court of equity will grant-relief, it will be demurrable for want of equity.</p> <p>5. A court of equity cannot grant relief when the complainant’s own showing in his bill demonstrates a want of equity in his prayer.</p> <p>6. Where one partner transfers his entire interest in the partnership concerns to his copartner so as to vest in the latter the partnership assets as his sole property, a dissolution of the partnership results.</p> <p>7. WHiere one partner has conveyed to his copartner his entire interest in the partnership property, in accordance with an agreement made and entered into between such partners, the consideration for such conveyance and dissolution being the assumption by the partner to whom the conveyance was made of the debts of the partnership as well as of certain individual indebtedness in part of the partner so conveying, and no fraud or misrepresentation upon the part of such partner is charged in the bill, the complainant is not entitled to an accounting from the defendant in a court of equity.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Levy County. STATEMENT. The transcript in this case consists of 376 typewritten pages. We have tried to set forth in the following statement a synopsis of the pleadings, evidence, orders, decrees and proceedings generally which will be sufficiently full for an intelligent understanding of the opinion. This has been a task of some difficulty, and the ' statement -is necessarily quite condensed.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit 'Court for Levy County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>This case was decided by Division B.</p> <p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County,</p> <p>STATEMENT.</p> <p>On April 21st, 1902, tbe appellant Eugene C. Hernandez filed bis bill for divorce against his wife Madge G. Hernandez upon the statutory ground of wilful, obstinate and continuous desertion for more than a year. The bill after alleging the desertion by the wife also alleged that the parties had two children named Blanche and Edith, the one seven years of age the other five years old, and the complainant voluntarily offered and consented in said bill that the custody of said two children should go to the mother until they arrived at the age of fifteen years when the said children were to have the right to select which parent they desired to live with, the father, in the mean time to have the right to visit and see them at all reasonable times. The wife answered the bill admitting the desertion of her husband as alleged, but sought in the answer to justify such desertion on the ground of alleged failure of the husband to provide for her and her two children, and upon the ground of unkind treatment by the husband. At the hearing before the master the complainant proved all of the allegations of his bill, but the defendant wife failed to introduce any evidence whatever to sustain her answer. On the 25th day of June, 1902, the Circuit Judge in and for Duval county rendered a decree divorcing the said parties a vinculo- matrimonii, and, in consonance with the voluntary offer in the complainant’s bill, adjudged the custody of the said two minor children to their mother Madge G. Hernandez until they each arrived respectively at the age of fifteen years, or until the further order of the court, when it was adjudged, said children should have the right to select which parent they should live with.</p> <p>On June 1st, 1903, Eugene C. Hernandez filed his- petition in the Circuit Go art of Duval county in which he set forth the above mentioned decree of divorce, and alleged that his said divorced wife Madge G. Hernandez had died during the month of September, 1902, and that upon her death, he had taken the custody and control of his said two minor children Blanche and Edith, then aged, respectively, eight and six years. Said petition further alleged that while said children were under the care and control of his wife they were permitted to go at large and to spend a large part of their time on the streets, and that since their mother’s death, although he had endeavored to keep them at home, they were inclined to be wild and to leave home and go off and be upon the streets; that he was unable to give them that care and attention necessary for their benefit and deemed it desirable that they should be put in such custody and care as will enable them to be properly educated and reared; that it was his desire that his said children should be reared and educated in the faith of the Eoman Catholic church, and that he desired that said children should be placed in the custody and control of St. Mary’s Orphan Home in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, to be there cared for and educated, and that he could and would pay the sum of five dollars per month for the care and maintenance of said children; that said Orphan’s home had expressed its willingness to take said children and educate and provide for them until they arrived at the age of eighteen years. Said petition prayed that said St. Mary’s Orphan Home might be awarded the care and custody of said minor children until they had arrived at the age of eighteen years.</p> <p>On June 1st, 1903, the Circuit Judge of Duval county made an order upon such petition granting the prayer thereof, and reciting the fact that it appeared to the court that it was for the best interests of said minors that they should be placed in the custody and control of said St. Mary’s Orphan Home, and decreed and ordered that said two minors should be placed in the custody and control of said Home until each of them shall have arrived at the age of eighteen years, or until the further order of the court. And it was further ordered and decreed that the petitioner Eugene O. Hernandez should pay to the said Orphan’s Home the sum of five dollars per month for the care, maintenance and support of said children.</p> <p>On October 15th, 1903, the appellee, Sarah Ann Thomas, filed an application to be permitted to intervene in the said divorce suit formerly pending between. Eugene C. Hernandez and Madge G. Hernandez, by petition presented with the application for such intervention. Said petition after setting forth the decree of divorce granted to Eugene O. Hernandez from his wife Madge G. Hernandez and its provisions as to the custody of said two minor children, alleged that the said Madge did continue to care for said two children and to rear them in a proper manner until the 16th day of September, 1902, when she died; that just before her death she did make and execute a last will and testament whereby she gave and bequeathed the custody- of the said children to petitioner Mrs. S. A. Thomas who was her mother and Mrs. A. M. DeLucca who was her sister; that soon after the death of said Madge the said Eugene called at the home of her the said petitioner, where the said Madge had lived for about two years preceding her death, and demanded possession of said children', and that she, being advised by her neighbors that he had a right to take them as matter of law, permitted him to take them from her possession, but not until she had exacted a promise and agreement from the said Eugene that whenever he found that he could not support the children as well as they had been supported by petitioner that they should be returned to her; that since that time she had learned while she was absent from the city of Jacksonville that said children were being allowed to run at large without any care or attention being given them, and that as soon as it was possible for her to do so she returned to Jacksonville for the purpose of getting possession of the said children; that in the mean time, however, the said Eugene C. Hernandez did file a petition in the Circuit Court of Duval county to have said children given to the care and custody of St. Mary’s Orphan Home in the city of Jacksonville all of which was done without notice to her, and which petition had been granted by the court, and that said two children were being held by said St. Mary’® Orphan Home against the consent of both of said children whose wish it is to live with petitioner who is their grand mother; that she, petitioner, was amply oíble financially, and is a proper and fit person in. all respects to care for, maintain, rear, educate and protect the said children, and that she is now entitled to the possession and custody of said children, and that it is to the best interests of the said children that petitioner have the care and custody of them. The petition prayed that the order and decree of the court made June 1st, 1903, consigning the custody and care of said children to St. Mary’s Orphan Home be vacated and set aside, and that she be decreed to have the care, custody and control of said children until they each arrived at the age of eighteen years. A copy of the purported will of said Madge G. Hernandez bequeathing the possession and custody of said children to Sarah Ann Thomas the petitioner and to their Aunt, Mrs. A. M. D'eLucca was attached as an exhibit to said petition.</p> <p>Efigene C. Hernandez and the representative of St. Mary’s Orphan Home filed divers- objections to the petitioner being allowed to intervene by petition in the divorce suit aforesaid, which objections it is unnecessary to state further.</p> <p>The court below overruled all of these objections and permitted the petition to be filed and required the defendants Eugene C. Hernandez and St. Mary’s Orphan Home to answer or defend by a fixed day. Eugene C. Hernandez demurred to the petition upon divers grounds not necessary to be noticed further. This demurrer was overruled by the court.</p> <p>Sister Mary Ann on behalf of St. Mary’s Orphan Home answered the petition alleging that the said two minor children had been consigned to the custody and care of said- Orphan Home not only by the order and decree of the Circuit Court for Duval county, but also by a deed in writing voluntarily executed by Eugene G. Hernandez the father of said children; that St. Mary’s Orphan Home is not an incorporated institution but is a private institution for the education, rearing and maintenance of orphan children in the Roman Catholic faith and is confined to children who are entirely orphaned, or whose parents desire them educated and reared in the Roman Catholic faith, and who are willing to pay for the care, maintenance and education of their children in accordance with their means; that when said children first came to said home they had acquired the habit of using improper and indecent language, and that the sisters in charge of said Home had found it necessary to take them aside and speak to them and by teaching and admonition eradicate from their minds the improper language and thoughts they had acquired before coming there; that since they have been there they have been carefully and tenderly cared for and nurtured; that they have ceased to speak improper language, have been well fed, have been given daily secular as well as religious instruction, have been kept clean and tidy, have not been permitted to run at large in the street, but have been kept within the enclosure of the Home, except when accompanied by one or more of the Sisters in charge of the Home, have been given ample exercise, and that everything possible to be done has been done and is being done to promote their physical mental and moral welfare, and that said children have been and are in good health, well contented and happy; and that their father has faithfully paid to said Home the sum of money he agreed to pay for their care; that said children express themselves contented to remain at said home, but that they are of such tender age as to be incapable of deciding for themselves what is to their best interests; that said children are taught to entertain a proper love and regard for their relatives, which relatives, including the petitioner, are permitted to and do visit them there, and that said Home does not seek to alienate their affection from their relatives; that said children are surrounded at said Home by educational and moral influences that conduce directly to their moral and mental welfare, and that it is for the best interests of said children that they should remain at said Home. It was further averred in the answer that the petitioner had no right at law or in equity to intervene in behalf of said children, and that no facts were set forth in the petition which entitle her to the custody of said children, and the same benefit is claimed therefrom as though the respondent had demurred to such petition.</p> <p>Eugene C. Hernandez also answered the petition separately. He alleges in his answer that while his divorced wife Madge G. Hernandez had the nominal care and custody of said two children, that they were in the actual custody of the petitioner Sarah Ann Thomas for the greater part of the time after the granting of the divorce; that shortly after the decree of divorce was rendered the Said Madge G. went to the city of Tampa where she remained until a short while before her death, and that during her absence the said children were left in Jacksonville with their grandmother, the petitioner, who bestowed so little care and attention upon them that they were habitually permitted to run at large upon the streets of Jacksonville; that the petitioner during such time resided in a disreputable neighborhood where her premises abutted the.premises of a notorious house of ill-fame occupied by prostitutes, and that said children were permitted to run at large on the premises occupied by said prostitutes. He denies that said children were reared and cared for in a proper manner while in the custody of their mother, but alleges that they were not reared and cared for in a proper manner during such time; that they were not sent to school, but were permitted to run at large, dirty, with soiled clothes on, unkept and uncared for on the streets of Jacksonville in a locality where numerous women of illfame resided; that he the said Eugene O. had married again, and by his second wife had one infant child, and that by reason of her feeble health and with her infant child to care for she found it impossible to keep the said two minor children in the house and off of the streets, or to restrain them from the vicious habits they had contracted during the nearly two years while they were in the nominal care and custody of their mother and grandmother, without chastising said children, which she refused to do because she did not wish to subject herself to the criticism of ill treating them as their stepmother; that- a large part of her time was occupied in hunting them up and -bringing them back to the house, and that although he had repeatedly counseled and advised them, he found that they had been so spoiled, and allowed to have their own way prior to their mother’s death, while in the custody of their said mother and grandmother, that they required constant watching, and that he became convinced that it was necessary for their moral welfare and to their proper rearing and education that he should place them where they would he properly educated and their moral and religious training attended to as he desired, and placed them for those reasons at said St. Mary’s Orphan Home, where he could and does have easy and frequent access to them, and where they would be given proper religious training in the Roman Catholic church of which he himself is a member; that he pays an agreed sum of five dollars per month for their care and support at said home. Said answer further denies that the petitioner is a fit and proper person to care for, rear and educate said children; that she has the reputation of being a fortune teller and of being the vendor of medicines to women to procure miscarriages and abortions; that said children are well cared for at said Home in every respect; that they are being properly educated, and their moral and religious training are looked after in accordance with his wishes; that they are there given secular and religious training every day in the week; that they attend church regularly, are kept from immoral and contaminating associates and influences; that they are happy and contented at said Home; that he is praying for their maintenance regularly and that they are living in a manner and style far superior morally, socially and religiously to any influences that the petitioner can surround them with.</p> <p>Replication was filed to these answers, a master was appointed to take testimony and a voluminous mass of testimony was taken and reported to the court. At the final hearing upon the petiton, answers and testimony the Circuit Judge made a final order or decree vacating its former decree made on June 1st, 1903, conferring the custody of said two minors to the St. Mary’s Orphan Home, and bestowing such custody upon the petitioner Sarah Ann Thomas until such children arrive at the age of discretion, or until the further order of the court, and requiring said St. Mary’s Orphan Home to forthwith deliver said children over to the said Sarah Ann Thomas. From this decree the said Ebgene C. Hernandez and St. Mary’s Orphan Home have taken their appeal to this court at the present pending term, and assign among other errors the following: That the court below erred in permitting the filing of the petition of Sarah Ann Thomas in intervention in the former Divorce suit between Eugene O. Hernandez and Madge G. Hernandez. (2) In overruling the demurrer of the respondent Eugene O. Hernandez to said petition. (3) That the court erred in awarding the custody of said two children to the petitioner Sarah Ann Thomas. (4) That the court was without authority of law to deprive a father of his minor children and from deciding and determining in whose care and custody such children should be placed in the absence of any allegation or proof that they were placed in the care and custody of improper persons.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from Circuit Court for Marion County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. STATEMENT. The appellees filed a bill in the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County for the reformation of an instrument in writing and for an injunction to restrain the defendant from prosecuting a suit at law for damages under said instrument in writing.

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County. STATEMENT. A bill to foreclose a mortgage upon certain real estate in Monroe county was filed by appellee in the Circuit Court of said county in July, 1903, against Albert &.

<p>1. An unrecorded deed may be good as to the parties thereto and as to those who have notice thereof.</p> <p>2. In a foreclosure proceeding a plea filed by the mortgagor that the property had been sold and possession delivered to a third party, calls for some vigilance on the part of the mortgagee as to the truth of such plea.</p> <p>3. One who lias bona fide bought and assumed possession of mortgaged property, prior to the proceedings for foreclosure, to which he is not a party, may be permitted to redeem the property from sale under such foreclosure.</p> <p>4. The findings of the Circuit Court on a question of the bona tides of a sale of realty, based in part on the non-recording of a deed and the lack of resistence when possession was demanded by purchaser under a judicial sale, will not be disturbed, the vendees being unlettered foreigners.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County. STATEMENT. A branch of this case was before this court at the January Term of this year, and our decision is reported in 38 South. Rep. 512.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. STATEMENT. James E. Kellum, Sallie Miller and Chandes Miller, her husband, exhibited their bill against Tootie B. McGregor in the Circuit Court for Lee county on the 29th day of November, 1904. An amended bill was filed the following February, which covered fully the case as made by their original bill and need alone be considered.

<p>This case was decided by Division A.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal fioxn Circuit Court for Marion County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County.

<p>This case was* decided by Division B.</p> <p>This is a case of original jurisdiction.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Taylor County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of tlm Court.

<p>ON RE-HEARING.</p> <p>A petition for re-bearing that is a re-argument of tbe case with comments on tbe evidence will not be entertained.</p>

<p>Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Nassau County; Rhydon M. Call, Judge.</p>