TOM COLEMAN AND DICK COLEMAN, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Tom Coleman and Dick Coleman appealed their conviction for cattle larceny in Escambia County, Florida, arguing the verdict was contrary to law and unsupported by evidence. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction because the appellants failed to properly preserve their arguments through an authenticated bill of exceptions.
The court did not reach the merits of the appellants' arguments because the motions for a new trial and exceptions thereto were not properly evidenced by an authenticated bill of exceptions. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
“A motion for a new trial upon the grounds stated in the assignments of error is essentially a matter in pais, and must, with the exception to the ruling thereon be evidenced to this court by bill of exceptions, in order to entitle us to consider it.”
Establishes the procedural requirement that motions for new trial must be evidenced by authenticated bill of exceptions for appellate review.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 1901, Tom Coleman and Dick Coleman were charged by information with larceny of cattle in the Criminal Court of Record of Escambia County. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bill Of Exceptions cases and more on FLexlaw
Carter, J.
In February A. D. 1901, plaintiffs in error were charged by information, and tried and convicted in the Criminal Court of Record of Escambia county of the crime of larceny of cattle, and from the sentences imposed sued out this writ of error. The errors assigned are: 1. The court erred in overruling the defendants’ motion for a new trial upon the ground stated in said motion, . viz: because the verdict was contrary to the law.
2. The court erred in not granting the defendants’ motion for a new trial as stated in said motion, viz: because the verdict was unsupported by the evidence, and because the 'verdict was contrary to the evidence.
There is in the transcript what purports to be a bill of exceptions, but it contains nothing but the evidence - adduced at the trial. It makes no reference to a motion for a new trial, nor to any ruling upon such a motion, nor to an exception to such a ruling. A motion for a new trial upon the grounds stated in the assignments of error is essentially a matter in pais, and must, with the exception to the ruling thereon be evidenced to this court by bill of exceptions, in order to entitle us to consider it. In other parts of the transcript the evidence set forth in the bill of exceptions is repeated. Following that appears what purports to be a motion for a new trial, with the ruling, of the court denying it, and further along a recital that the ruling denying the motion was excepted to, but these matters do not appear to be authenticated by the judge in any way, and they are evidently mere recitals of the clerk as to the matters mentioned.
The motion for a new trial and exception thereto not being evidenced by bill of exceptions, we are unable to decide the questions sought to be reviewed by the assignment of errors.
The judgments of the court below are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baxley v. State, 72 Fla. 228 (Fla. 1916)…Bros. Co. v. Price & Watson, 56 Fla. 854, 48 South. Rep. 262; Jacksonville Electric Co. v. Adams, 50 Fla. 429, 39 South. Rep. 183; Andrews v. State, 65 Fla. 377, 61 South. Rep. 975; Johnson v. State, 53 Fla. 42, 43 South. Rep. 430; Coleman v. State, 43 Fla. 543, 30 South. Rep. 684; Davis v. State, 47 Fla. 26, 36 South. Rep. 170; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 51 Fla. 211, 41 [*232] South. Rep. 194; Gilbert v. State, 58 Fla. 50, 50 South. Rep. 535; Phillips v. State, 62 Fla. 77, 57 South. Rep. 341. This disposes al…
-
Risden McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149 (Fla. 1903)…ider this assignment for the reason that said motion for a new trial a'nd the ruling of the court thereon appear only in the record proper, and are not ■ evidenced to this court by a bill of exceptions. As was said by this court in Coleman v. State, 43 Fla. 543, 30 South. Rep. 684, “a motion for a new trial, upon the grounds stated in the assignments of error, is essential^ a matter in pais, and must, with the exception to the ruling thereon, be evidenced to this court by bill of exceptions, in order to en…
-
Johnson v. State, 53 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1907)…transcript of record brought up for appellate review, but must be evidenced to an appellate court by bill of exceptions, and when not so evidenced cannot be considered by such court. Pace v. Lanier, 32 Fla. 291, 13 South. Rep. 360; Coleman v. State, 43 Fla. 543, 30 South. Rep. 684; McDonald v. State, 46 Fla. 149, 35 South. Rep. 72; Parnell v. State 47 Fla. 90, 36 South. Rep. 165. . It follows from what has been said that this court cannot consider or adjudicate the sole question presented and urged, and t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence