Volume 8 — Florida Reports

Tbis case was decided at Tampa. This was an action on the case for slander, instituted in Hillsborough Circuit Court by the appellee against the appellant. The declaration contained two counts, the second of which was afterwards by leave of the Court amended.

This case was decided at Tampa. The plaintiff in error instituted his suit by attachment against the defendant in error in Hillsborough Circuit Court, at the fall term 1856, a trial was had, and the jury having returned a verdict for the defendant, a judgment was thereujion entered by the Court. At the same term a motion was made by the plaintiff for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence.

<p>This case was decided at Tampa.</p> <p>The facts of the case are fully set out in the opinion of the Court, to which reference is made.</p>

This case was decided at Tampa. Eriebele brought his action of assumpsit against McKay in Hillsborough Circuit Court, stating the damages in the iprmavpe at $249 SO.

<p>1. Where there is no hill of exceptions accompanying the fecord, but the instruction complained of purports to have been in writiiig, duly attested by the judge who presided at the trial, and it is manifestly irrelevant to the issue joined between the parties, this Court will consider and pronounce upon such instruction.</p> <p>2. Where a promissory note had been, given for the purchase of a horse, which note was afterwards transferred to a third party, who brought suit thereon against the maker, and the pleas were “failure,” “partial failure” and “ want of consideration,”it is error in the judge below to instruct the jury, “ that to sustain the defendant’s plea of fraud, it must be proved to them, that there was fraud by the payee of the note, in the sale of the horse to the maker; and that there was fraud between the assignee and the payee of the note, in the purchase of the note ; and that it must be proved that the assignee was notified of the fraud between the payee and the maker in the sale of the horse before he purchased the note.”</p>

This case was decided afc Tampa. Anders brought his action of assumpsit against Stafford upon two promissory notes, one for two hundred and nineteen dollars, and the other for one hundred aud fifty doblara.

This case was decided at Marianna. The appellant filed her bill in the Circuit Court of Washington county against the appellees, alleging that her husband, William A. Harrell, died in Washington county, in this State, on the 27th day of February, 1856, and that letters of administration on his estate were granted to complainant; that at the time of the death of said William A. Harrell, he was the owner of certain real and personal estate described in the bill; that said…

This ease was decided at Tampa. The facts of the case as presented in the record, are fully-set forth in the opinion of the Court, to which reference is made.1

<p>In a presentation for assault and battery, it is competent for tbe defendant, botb at common law and under tbe statute of this State, conferring upon tbe jury tbe right to fix the measure of punishment within certain limits, to give in evidence bis general good character, although the same may not have been assailed by the prosecution.</p>

This case was decided at Jacksonville. This was an action of replevin instituted in Duval Circuit Court. The appellee, as sheriff of Duval county, having in hand a writ of retorno habendo, directed to the sheriffs of the State of Florida, issued from Leon Circuit Court under a judgment of said Court in favor of Daniel T. Lingo against the appellant, in his individual capacity, seized eleven slaves, in compliance with the command of said writ.

<p>1. Under the provisions of our statute, the defendant in a criminal ease has a right to the concluding argument before the jury, -when he introduces no testimony on the trial.</p> <p>2. The statute -which secures to the defendant in criminal cases the right to the concluding argument, is mandatory in its character, and a denial of the right by the court may be the subject of a bill of exceptions.</p>

<p>1. Where a bill is brought against his guardian by a ward, to compel him to account for certain slaves alleged to have been received by him from the estate of the father of the ward, a plea by the guardian that they had been recovered from him in an action of detinue, prosecuted by the administrator on the father’s estate, constitutes a good defence.</p> <p>2. The hires of the slaves accruing prior to the recovery by the administrator follow the title of the property, and are due to the administrator and not to the ward.</p> <p>3. Where a plea in bar to the original bill has been sustained upon demurrer, a supplemental bill, filed afterwards, and before the final decree, confessing and avoiding the matters set up in the plea as a defence, ought to be answered by the defendant, and it is error to dismiss it upon demurrer.</p> <p>4. Where a bill for account is brought against a guardian and the sureties on his guardian bond, the final decree, if for the payment of money, should be so framed that it shall be enforced against the sureties only in the event that the money cannot be made out of the principal.</p> <p>5. Where one of several wards brings his bill for account against his guardian, the other wards who may be interested in the general fund, must be made parties to the suit.</p>

This case was decided at Tampa. The facts presented by the record are set forth in the opinion of the Court, to which reference is made.

This case was decided at Jacksonville. William H. Tison recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court of Columbia county against Henry Mattair, the husband of the appellee, on the 20th day of December, 1855. Upon this judgment execution was issued on the 31st day of January, 1856, which was levied on a negro slave named Primus, as the property of the defendant in execution.

<p>1. There must be a record or inventory of the property acquired by a married woman in the Clerk’s office of the county in which it is situated, within six months after its acquisition, to protect it from the husband’s debts.</p> <p>2. In the trial of the right-of property asserted by a married woman through a purchase, there must be proof that it was made with her separate funds, otherwise the presumption is that it was through means furnished by her husband.</p> <p>3. In such a trial, under the claim law, the sole issue is as to the right of the claimant, and he cannot object to either the judgment or execution under which the levy was made.</p> <p>4. The Court will not reverse a case where the facts are not presented by a BiR of Exceptions, or there is an agreed ease made in the Court below.</p>

This case was decided at Tallahassee. On the 2d day of April, 1856, the appellees, the children of Minor Walker, who are minors, instituted an action of assumpsit in Jefferson Circuit Court against the appellant, to recover the hires of fifteen negro slaves for five years, from 1850 to 1855. The appellant pleaded: 1st. Won assumpsit.- 2d. Payment to the father of the plaintiffs, as natural guardian, of a large sum in full satisfaction.

This case was decided at Mariana. On tlie 21st day of April, 1857, the appellee instituted in the Circuit Court of Jackson county an action of assumpsit against the appellant, to recover the sum of one hundred and sixty-three 22-100 dollars, claimed to be due for lumber sold and delivered at different times in the year' 1855. The declaration contains a single count for goods sold and delivered, and the appellant pleaded non assumpsit,upon which issue was joined.

This case was decided at Jacksonville. Appeal from a decree of a Circuit Court for Leon county, in chancery. A. T. Bennett had recovered a judgment, in an action of trover in the Circuit Court for Franklin county, against Farisb Carter, for about twenty thousand dollars. Carter appealed from said judgment to the Supreme Court of this State, and the judgment having been affirmed, be appealed therefrom to tbe Supreme Court of tbe United States. A. G-. Semmes, W. Gr.

' This case was decided at Marianna. ,' The facts of the case are fully set out in the opinion of •-the Court, to which reference is made.

This case was decided at Jacksonville. This was an action of assumpsit, instituted by Joseph Grice, a commission merchant in New York, against John W. Pearson to recover the balance of .an account claimed to be due for commissions, advances and interest thereon in the purchase of merchandize, sale -of lumber and chartering of vessels.

This case was decided at Marianna. In May, 1847, John Brantly, the father of the appellees, died in Jackson county, Florida, after having first made his last will and testament, in which, after providing for the payment of his debts, he makes the following provisions, viz: “I give and bequeath unto my dearly beloved wife, Elizabeth Brantly, her heirs and assigns, all the property, goods, chattels, rights and credits of which I may he possessed for and during her natural…

This case was decided at Marianna. On the first day of April, 1853, Wynn, the appellant, gave his promissory note to J. Day & Co., of Apalachicola, for $7,03é 68, and on the same day executed a mortgage on certain negro slaves to secure the payment of said note. Afterwards, J. Day & Co. assigned and delivered the said note and mortgage to Ely, the appellee. On the 20th day of September, 1855, Ely instituted this suit against Wynn by petition to foreclose the said mortgage.

<p>1. For the removal of a husband as trustee for his wife by statute, something more is required in consequence of the relation than in the case of an ordinary trustee.</p> <p>2. In case of desertion by the husband, or of cruelty to the wife, the Court will intercept her estate which may come to his hands or in his possession so as to secure her maintenance and support, and, in such a ease, remove him as trustee.</p> <p>3. They will not remove him as trustee, in ease of desertion of the wife, without cause, although the husband may not have been entirely without fault.</p> <p>4. The conduct of the next friend of the wife in the case reprehended.</p> <p>5. The Court should take care that its records should be protected as far as possible from obscene expressions.</p>

This case was decided at Tallahassee. Appeal from Leon Circuit Court. The opinion of the Court contains a full statement of the facts of the case, to which reference is made.

This case was decided at Tallahassee. Appeal from Leon Circuit Court. B. R. Lignoski instituted an action of assumpsit for tbe use of A. L. O’Brien on a promissory note executed by the appellee to Caroline M. Lignoski, of which the following is a copy: “ On or before the first day of January next, I promise to pay to Caroline M. Lignoski, or order, five hundred dollars, for value received, with eight per cent, interest from date.

This case was decided at Tallahassee. Appeal from Columbia Circuit Court. Caroline Y. Summerlin, daughter of complainant Mary Ann j ones, died an infant possessed of considerable personal estate, derived from her father Jacob Summerlin, deceased. Jacob Summerlin, at'his death, left two children by his marriage with said Mary Ann Jones, one of whom was the said Caroline Y. Summerlin, dec’d. He also left five children by a former marriage.

<p>1. The bailee of a slave upon hire is bound to bestow that degree of eare and attention which a humane master would bestow on his own servant under the like circumstances. '</p> <p>Í5. When there is conflicting evidence and the verdict is not manifestly against the weight of evidence, the Oourt will not interpose to set aside the verdict of a jury.</p>

This case was decided at Tallahassee. Appeal from Leon Circuit Court. Held: kept possession of and controlled the same; that he has hired out said slaves, collected and received large sums of money due for hire and has in every respect dealt with, managed and conducted himself with regard to said property as if he was legally authorized to do so, and has not accounted to any person for his acts; that said…

This case was decided at Tallahassee. Appeal from Monroe Circuit Court.

This case was decided at Marianna. Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. The opinion of the Court contains a statement of the facts of the case, to which reference is made.

This case was decided at Marianna. Appeal from Santa Eosa county. This was an action of assumpsit.

This case was decided at Marianna. Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. On the petition of Thomas N. Gautier in behalf of Dick, alleging him to be free and unlawfully detained in slavery and custody, a writ of habeas corpus was issued against William Clark to show cause why he detained the said Dick. It appears by the record that Dick is a mulatto man, and that he has been held in servitude from early infancy.

<p>On motion to docket and dismiss appeal.</p>

This case was decided at Tallahassee. Appeal from Leon Circuit Court. This was an action of assumpsit, instituted by the appellee against the appellant to recover the amount of subscription for stock in the said Company by Martin, the appellant. Defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and, by agreement of parties, all substantial defences were to be admitted under that plea.

This case was decided at Jacksonville, Appeal from Duval Circuit Court. Por the facts of the case reference is made to the opinion of the Court.

This case was decided at Jacksonville. Appeal from Putnam Circuit Court. This was a suit in equity, brought by Zawadski and wife against Gilliland and Glinski, to compel the latter to make title to a lot in the town of Palatka, which the complainants allege they purchased from said Glinski, and upon which they erected a building and expended large sums of money. There was no bond for title on record; though the bill states that one was executed.

This case was decided at Jacksonville. Appeal from Duval Circuit Court, The opinion of the Court contains a statement of the facts in the case, to which reference is made.

This case was decided at Tampa. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Hillsborough county. The opinion of the Court contains a statement of the facts in the case, to whicíi reference is made.

This case was decided at Tampa. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Hillsborough county. The opinion of the Court contains a statement of the facts of the case, to which reference is made.

This case was decided at Tampa. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Hillsborough county. The opinion of the Court contains a statement of the facts in the case, to which reference is made.

This case was decided at Tampa. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Hillsborough county. The opinion of the Court contains a statement of the facts of the case, to which reference is made.

<p>On motion to call a Circuit Judge to the bench, upon suggestion of a disqualification of one of the Justices of the Supreme Court to sit.</p> <p>The opinions of the Chief Justice, referred to above, are appended hereto. — Reporter.</p> <p>The Justices of the Supreme Court have no power to make or appoint Judges for the Court, nor has the Legislature such power conjointly with the Judges.</p> <p>1. The Supreme Court is competent to act through a majority of its members.</p> <p>2. The presence of all is not indispensable to the transaction of public business.</p>

<p>1. A Court lias full power and authority to enforce the attendance of its members.</p> <p>2. The Judges are officers of the Court, and not above the law nor exempt from the compulsory process of the Court.</p> <p>5. This power is not confined, as is alleged, to inferiors and subordinates, as Circuit Judges, Attorneys, Jurors, Witnesses, Justices of the Peace, Clerks, Sheriffs, &e.</p> <p>4. It is inherent in the Court, affirmed by statute and its own decisions, and is indispensable to its very existence and preservation. The power does not pertain to the Chief Justice, but to the Judge or Judges present at the time fixed by law for holding the Court.</p> <p>6. Rescinding and expunging resolutions or orders and protests are wholly unknown in judicial proceedings and not entitled to the sanction of Courts of Justice,</p>