WILLARD EDWARDS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FLOSSIE EDWARDS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment against Willard Edwards, who was found guilty of being the father of a bastard child. The court held that the county judge had the authority to initiate the proceedings by accepting the affidavit and issuing the warrant.
Yes, the county judge had the jurisdiction to initiate the bastardy proceeding by receiving the affidavit and issuing the warrant.
“All the assignments of error question the authority of- the county judge to entertain the complaint, receive the affidavit and issue the warrant.”
This quote frames the central legal question of the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlossie Edwards filed an affidavit accusing Willard Edwards of being the father of a bastard child. A warrant was issued, and Willard Edwards was trie…
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.
Per Curiam.
On the 10th of December, 1903, Flossie Edwards made an affidavit before Paul S. Thomson, County Judge of Gadsden county, charging Willard Edwards with being the father of a bastard child, which contained the averments necessary under section 2080, Rev. Stats, of 1892. A warrant in accordance with the affidavit was issued by the county judge and at the April term of the Circuit Court the plaintiff in error was tried and found guilty. From the judgment and sentence a writ of error was sued out from this court.
All the assignments of error question the authority of-the county judge to entertain the complaint, receive the affidavit and issue the warrant. We are of the opinion that under our constitution and laws the county judge had jurisdiction to inaugurate the proceeding by receiving the affidavit and issuing the warrant. Section 17, Art. 5, constitution of 1885; section 2847, Rev. Stats., 1892; William H. T. v. State ex rel. M. C., 18 Fla. 883, third head-note.
The judgment is affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except Carter, J., absent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harry E. Prettyman, Inc. v. The Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 92 Fla. 515 (Fla. 1926)…17, Article V of the Constitution in Pugh v. Bowden, 54 Fla. 302, 45 South. Rep. 499; Ex Parte Soudamore, 55 Fla. 211, 46 South. Rep. 279; Board of Com’rs of Hillsborough Co., v. Savage, 63 Fla. 337, 58 South. Rep. 835. See also Edwards v. Edwards, 48 Fla. 71, 37 South. Rep. 569. The proceedings for revoking registration certificates and occupational licenses in Section 9 of Chapter 11336 are not exclusively judicial in their nature; they differ materially from the criminal procedure contemplated by Sec…
Authorities Cited
- William H. T. v. The State of Fla. ex rel. M. C., 18 Fla. 883 (Fla. 1882)