Volume 51 — Florida Reports

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Madison 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 Criminal Court of Record for Duval 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 Columbia 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 Sumpter 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 Calhoun 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 Columbia 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 tbe Circuit Court for Jackson County. 5 s. c. 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 Criminal Court of Record for Orange 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 Criminal Court of Record for Du-val County. STATEMENT.

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

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 Volusia 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.

<p>1. Chapter 5132 of the Laws of 1903, prescribing the requisites to be complied with by parties charged with crime in applications for the procurement of witnesses for their defense at the cost of the county, is not in conflict with or violative of either Section 11 or. Section 14 of the declarar tion of rights of the State Constitution of 1885. And, when the cost of the procurement of such witnesses is initiatorily proposed to be thrown upon the county, a sound judicial discretion is vested in the trial judge to determine whether or not the statutory requirements have been properly compiled with, and also to determine the bona tides of such application, and an appellate court will not disturb the action of the trial judge upon such application, unless an abuse of this judicial discretion is clearly made to appear.</p> <p>2. Application under Chapter 5132 of the Laws of 1903, for the procurement of witnesses, at the cost of the county, for the defense of parties charged with crime, should be seasonably made at the earliest reasonable opportunity, and not withheld until the case is actually called for trial.</p> <p>3, The sixth amendment to the Federal Constitution has reference only to powers exercised by the government of the United States, and not to those of the States.</p> <p>4. In criminal as well as in civil cases an application for a continuance is addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court, and the denial of such a motion will not be reversed by an appellate court, unless there has been a palpable abuse of this judicial discretion, which must he clearly and affirmatively made to appear in the bill of exceptions, the rule being that motions for a continuance in criminal cases are to be even more closely scanned than in civil cases, because of the greater temptation to delay.</p> <p>5. Where there are assignments of error in a criminal case which are not argued, but merely repeated and insisted upon in the brief of plaintiff in error, an appellate court is not required to do more than read the record carefully in conneetipn with such assignments, and if it discovers no plain or glaring error prejudicial to the plaintiff in error, under such assignments, the judgment will not be reversed • because of such assigned errors.</p> <p>6. An appellate court will not consider any grounds of objection 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>7., The trial court is authorized to regulate the order of the introduction of evidence, and its discretion in this matter will only he interfered with by an appellate court when a clear abuse thereof is made to appear.</p> <p>8. If evidence apparently incompetent only because its relevancy is not apparent, or because it is not the best evidence, is offered, the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, receive it conditionally, if counsel gives assurance that he will supply the necessary foundation afterward. If, however, such evidence is so- conditionally received, and the necessary connecting evidence is not introduced, so as to show the relevancy of the admitted evidence, the court should exclude the evidence so received on its own motion, but if the failure to connect be not apparent or glaring, the objecting party should move to exclude.</p> <p>9. General objections to evidence proposed, without stating the precise grounds of objections, are vague and nugatory, and are without weight before an appellate court, unless the evidence objected to is palpably prejudicial, improper, and inadmissible for any purpose or under any circumstances.</p> <p>10. Evidence of circumstances tending to connect the accused with the.commission of the alleged crime, even though inconclusive, is properly admitted.</p> <p>11. In a prosecution for forgery it is not error to permit a witness'to testify as to the signature of the defendant, when such witness has testified that he had seen defendant sign his name on different occasions though he was familiar with defendant’s signature.</p> <p>12. In a prosecution for forgery it is competent to show that about the time of the alleged forging and uttering by defendant other similar instruments, had been forged or uttered by him, in pursuance of a general scheme to defraud, and the fact that defendant was under indictment for the forgery of some of the other instruments does not affect their admissibility in evidence.</p> <p>13. For the purpose of discrediting a witness, a wide range of cross-examination is permitted as a matter of right in regard to his motives, interest, or animus as connected with the cause or parties thereto, upon which matters he may be contradicted by other evidence, and the rule applies to the cross-examination of a defendant, when he voluntarily offers himself as a witness, to the same extent with like limitations as to other witnesses. The motives, interest, or animus of a witness are not collateral matters, and these may be shown and considered by the jury in estimating the credibility of a witness, and as to such matters he may be contradicted.</p> <p>14. An assignment predicated upon the refusal of the trial court to give a certain requested instruction cannot be considered by an appellate court, in the absence of any showing that an exception was taken to said ruling.</p> <p>15. 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 Jackson 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 DeSoto 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.

<p>This case was decided by Division B.</p> <p>Writ of Error to the Criminal Court of Record for Du-val County.</p> <p>The facts in the case ,are stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. This is a case of original jurisdiction. 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 Marion County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of . the Court.

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

<p>1. Rulings of the trial court excluding a letter and a telegram offered in evidence by the plaintiff will not he disturbed on writ of error where the letter and telegram are not shown to be relevant, particularly when matters stated in them were without objection testified to by the plaintiff and not contradicted.</p> <p>2. Where there is evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury approved by the trial court, and nothing appears in the record to show bias of the jury or abuse of a sound judicial discretion of the court the verdict will not be disturbed , on the ground that it is contrary to the evidence and is the result of bias.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for DeSoto County- STATEMENT.

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Escambia County. STATEMENT. The City Council of the City of Pensacola on September 27th, 1905, adopted the following ordinance: “An Ordinance to be Entitled An Ordinance to Require Street Car Companies and Others Operating Street Cars along the Streets of the City of Pensacola to furnish separate Cars, or Divisions in Cars, or Other Provisions for the Separation of White and Colored Passengers.

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.

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

Thi s case was decided by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Putnam 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 tire Circuit Court for Holmes 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 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 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 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 Madison 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 Escambia 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 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 Polk County. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

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

<p>1. Where plaintiffs and defendants' in ejectment claim land through a common soúrce of title, or where the defendant himself produces evidence recognizing the existence and validity of a deed through which both parties plaintiff and defendant claim rights and interests in the land in controversy, errors committed' in allowing improper evidence of the title, or improper proof of the execution of such deed on the part of the plaintiff are harmless.</p> <p>2. Where during a term of the Circuit Court a formal judgment in a case is written out and signed by the judge, which is by the clerk recorded upon the minutes of the court to the minute entry of which is appended a certificate by the clerk to the effect that the foregoing copy of final judgment is a true and correct transcript of the same as appears upon the files and records of his office, such minute entry becomes properly a part of the record of the court, and a properly certified copy thereof is admissible as evidence of the existence of such judgment. The minute entry need not be certified by the clerk, where the minutes have been duly signed by the judge at the conclusion of the term as required by statute, but the fact that the clerk’s certificate is attached to the minute entry-does not make that entry any the'less a record entry proper to be certified as such.</p> <p>.'3. A properly certified transcript of a judgment signed by the judge and entered upon the minutes of the Circuit Court during a term, taken from the minutes, when properly recorded in the Record of Foreign ’Judgments of another county in 1891, became a lien upon the real estate of the judgment debtor in the latter county from the time of its record, and a properly certified transcript of such recorded judgment from the Record of Foreign Judgments is admissible in evidence to prove the fact of such record.</p> <p>4. The custodian of a record having authority to certify a transcript thereof has authority to specify in his certificate the particular record from which the transcript is taken, and such certificate is at least prima facie evidence of the fact certified.</p> <p>5. It is the duty of Clerks of the Circuit Courts who have a\ithority to record documents or to make entries in the records of which they have custody, in the course of their official duty, to note on such records the date upon which they record such instruments or make such entries, which notes parts of such record, and the dates specified in such, notes are to be taken as prima facie correct. In certifying such entries the clerk also has authority to certify such notes and the certified copies are admissible on account of the inconvenience of removing the originals.</p> <p>6. Where an original execution has been returned to the court which issued it, the clerk of that court having the custody of such original has authority under the statutes of this State to certify a copy of the original, and such certified copy is admissible in evidence without producing the original.</p> <p>7. Recitals in recorded deeds not constituting links in the chain of title of a judgment debtor and to which he is not a party, which purports to show equities in third persons, are not notice to a judgment creditor of equities claimed by such third persons.</p> <p>8. If at the time a lien is acquired by a judgment creditor he nas no notice actual or constructive of equities of third persons in real estate the title to which stands in the name of the judgment debtor as the apparent absolute owner, the purchaser at the execution sale, whether such purchaser be the judgment creditor or another, takes a good title and is protected as a bona fide purchaser, even though the creditor or purchaser had notice of such equities at the time of the sale.</p> <p>9. A judgment creditor who purchases at his execution sale' real estate the title to which at the time of the entry or record of his judgment, stood in the name of his judgment. debtor, takes a good title as against persons to whom the judgment debtor conveyed the title, even though the title was originally taken in the name of such judgment debtor oy the consent of such persons in trust for them, where at the time the judgment was entered or recorded no declaration of trust or other conveyance from the judgment debtor declaring such irust had been recorded.</p> <p>10. Where an execution has been levied upon all the right, title and interest of a judgment debtor in real estate, and a sale has been had and a deed executed in pursuance of such levy and sale conveying all such right, title and interest to the judgment creditor, such purchaser is not estopped from claiming the entire property so levied upon sold and . conveyed by the mere fact that he was silent at the sale when a third party. protested against the sale announcing that the judgment debtor only owned an undivided one-fifth interest in the property.</p>

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. 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 of Error to the Circuit Court for Suwannee County. Tbe facts in tbe case are stated-in the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided by tbe Court En Banc. Writ of Error to tbe Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County. The facts ,in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court. Park hill, J., dissents.

This case was decided by Division A. 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 the Court En Banc. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County. STATEMENT. On October 23rd, 1905, the City Council of the City of Jacksonville adopted the following ordinance: “An Ordinance Regulating, Requiring and Providing for the Furnishing of Separate Accommodations for and the Separation of White and Colored Passengers on Street Cars. Be it Ordained by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Jacksonville: Section 1.

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 B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for DeSoto 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. statement. In December, 1904, the plaintiff in error, Emma Readdy, sued the defendant in error, The Tampa Electric Company, a corporation, to recover damage® for an alleged personal injury, in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough county. In April, 1905, the defendant pleaded not guilty, and contributory negligence, upon which pleas issue was joined.

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

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

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

This case wa® decided by Division A. 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 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 DeSoto County The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>1. Where a bill of exceptions states that “the defendant did on the 24th day of April, 1905, by virtue of the said order herein made, present to the court the testimony taken in said case together with the objections therein and his assignment of error upon which to settle the bill of exceptions and on this day did present this his bill of exceptions to the rulings of the said judge and request him to sign the same, to the signing of which bill of exceptions the plaintiff” did object on the ground that no such bill of exceptions as contemplated and required by the rules of practice and the laws of Florida was presented to the court or signed by the court within the ninety days allowed therefor “which objection the court did then and there overrule * * ' * and the said judge after due notice * * * did sign this bill of exceptions this 24th day of June, 1905,” and there is nothing in the transcript to show what time was allowed within which to make up and settle the bill of exceptions, it will be presumed that such bill was made up and presented to the court within the time allowed by the said order made for that purpose.</p> <p>2. In an action for deceit the plaintiff must set out the false representations on which the charge is based.</p> <p>3.. There can be no recovery upon a cause of action, however meritorious it may be, or however satisfactorily proved, that is in substance variant from that which is alleged in the declaration.</p> <p>i. The instructions of the court must be confined to the issues made by the pleadings, and it is error for the trial court to instruct the jury that they may base their verdict in favor of the plaintiff upon a cause of action, however meritorious or satisfactorily proved, that is substantially different from that which lie has alleged.</p> <p>5. Where a charge given is erroneous injury is presumed, and will be cause for reversal unless from an inspection of the whole record the court can say affirmatively that the jury could not have been misled thereby.</p> <p>6. In an action for deceit a charge which instructs the jury that they must find for the plaintiff if they believe from the evidence that certain false representations were made as inducements and were relied on, is erroneous, when such representations are substantially different from those alleged in the declaration; and the judgment will be reversed where it does not appear that the jury could not have been misled by the erroneous charge.</p>

This case was decided, by Division B. Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Orange County. STATEMENT. On the 7th day of December, 1903, the defendant in error, T. BE.

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 of Error to the Circuit Court for Columbia County The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

<p>MUNICIPAL LAW—AWARD OF CONTRACTS TO LOWEST BIDDER—ILLEGAL PROVISIONS IN CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS—CITY NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES NECESSARILY CONSEQUENT TO EXECUTION OF PUBLIC WORKS—TAX PAYER MAY ENJOIN PAYMENT OF PUBLIC MONEY ON ILLEGAL CONTRACT.</p> <p>1. Where the charter or incorporating act requires the officers of a city to award contracts for public works to the lowest bidder, a contract made in violation of its requirements is illegal and void, and neither the municipality nor its subordinate officers can make a binding contract for such work except in compliance with the requirements of the law.</p> <p>2. The intention of the law in requiring such contracts to be let or awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for the work, is to secure the public improvement at the lowest reasonable cost to the taxpayers. Therefore the incorporation into the advertisement for bids, or into the specifications of the work, upon which such bids are predicated, of illegal or unauthorized conditions or obligations upon the contractor, compliance with which on his part will . necessarily and illegally increase the cost of the work, is„ not a letting of such contract to the lowest bidder, the meaning of the law, and will render the contract illegal and void.</p> <p>3. When a municipal corporation confines itself within the limits of its power and jurisdiction it is not liable to an action for consequential damages to private property or persons (unless such liability is imposed by special constitutional provision or by statute), where the act complained of was done by it or its officers under and pursuant to authority conferred by a valid act of the legislature, and there has been' no want of reasonable care or want of reasonable skill in the execution of the power, although the same act, if done without legislative sanction, would be actionable.</p> <p>4. 'While municipalities may by ordinance grant to individuals and corporations the privilege of occupying the streets and public ways for lawful pitrposes, such as railroad tracks, poles, wires, gas and water pipes, such rights are at all times held in subordination to the superior rights of the public, and all necessary and desirable police ordinances, that are reasonable, may be enacted and enforced to protect the public health, safety and convenience, notwithstanding th'e same may interfere with legal franchise rights. Thus a water company placing its pipes in the streets under a franchise contract with the city, does so in subordination to the superior rights of the public, through its duly constituted municipal authorities, to construct sewers'in the same streets, whenever and wherever the public interest demands; and if in consequence of the exercise of this right, the water company is compelled to relay its pipes, in the absence' of unreasonable or malicious conduct, it has no cause of action against the corporation for reimbusement on account thereof. And the city in such case has no authority voluntarily to burden itself nr its taxpayers with the payment of damages necessarily consequent upon the reasonably careful and skilful execution of its authorized public works.</p> <p>5. The law is well settled that a taxpayer in a city can properly maintain a bill to restrain public officials of the city from ’ paying out public moneys upon void and unauthorized contract.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee 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 Polk County. STATEMENT.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from 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 B.</p> <p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Washington County. STATEMENT.

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. STATEMENT.

<p>1. Objections to testimony not presented to nor ruled on by the Circuit Court will not be considered here.</p> <p>2. In the absence of an attack upon the equity of a bill seeking to enforce an equitable lien on personal property based upon a personal agreement no “creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice” being involved, a decree of foreclosure fully justified by the evidence will not be disturbed.</p> <p>3. It cannot be assigned as error that the court imposed an improper condition for a supersedeas bond.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from 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 B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. STATEMENT.

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

<p>1. A failure of consideration should be directly, positively and unequivocally averred in order to impose the burden of proof on the complainant.</p> <p>2. Averments of a sworn answer must be as to matters of personal knowledge and must be directly and positively responsive to material allegations of the bill in order to be conclusive evidence in favor of the parties answering unless overcome by the testimony of two witnesses or by the testimony of one witness and corroborating circumstances.</p> <p>3. If proper averments in a sworn answer of a failure of consideration are direct, positive and certain they impose the burden of proof on the complainant, and if such averments are of personal knowledge and are directly responsive to the allegations of the bill, they may be conclusive evidence in favor of the parties answering unless overcome by the testimony of two witnesses, or the testimony of one witness corroborated by other circumstances; but direct, positive and certain averments of a failure of consideration which are sufficient to impose the burden of proof on the complainant, yet which are not directly responsive to the allegations of the bill, are not such evidence in favor of the parties answering as requires the complainant to produce more than the testimony of one witness.</p> <p>4 When the answer in á foreclosure proceeding denies none of the allegations of the bill and admits the consideration shown by the bill and exhibits, and sets up other consideration in addition thereto and avers the failure of a part of such additional considerations, and the testimony shows that the consideration alleged in the bill was the consideration for the mortgage, a decree of forclosure based on the consideration alleged in the bill and proven is not erroneous on the ground of failure of consideration for the mortgage.</p>

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

<p>1. The definitions of a vendor’s lien contained in Johnson v McKinnon, 45 Fla. 388, 34 South. Rep. 272, and Wooten v. Bellinger, 17 Fla. 289, cited and applied in this case.</p> <p>2. Where R. files a bill against W. and B. to foreclose a vendor’s lien on land sold by R. to W., and it appears that W. owes R.- $160.00 as a part of the purchase money, and B. purchases the land from W. knowing at the time that W. owes R. the above purchase money, and R. has a vendor’s lien for the purchase money, where it does not appear that R. has waived his vendor’s lien, by taking other security or otherwise, B. takes the property subject to the vendor’s lien of R.</p>

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

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. STATEMENT. This is an original proceeding in mandamus brought by the Attorney General under the provisions of Chapter 4700, acts of 1899, to enforce an order of the Eailroad Commissioners and seeks practically the same relief which was sought in a previous proceeding by mandamus in this court, between the same parties, but under different conditions.

<p>This case ivas decided by Division A.</p> <p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

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.

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

This case .was decided by the Court En Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. STATEMENT. This is an original proceeding in mandamus brought by the Attorney General in the name of the State under the provisions of Chapter 1700 Acts of 1899 to enforce an order made by the Railroad Commissioners. The alternative writ is as follows: THE STATE OF FLORIDA: TO THE ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, A CORPORATION.

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

This case was decided by the Court En Banc. Appeal from 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. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. STATEMENT.

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

<p>This case was decided by the Court En Banc.</p>

<p>Writ of Error to Circuit Court Santa Rosa county j James T. Wills, Judge Eighth Circuit sitting for the Judge First Circuit.</p>

<p>Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Minor S. Jones, Judge.</p>