A. C. TESTON, PLAINTIFF 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.
The Florida Supreme Court rejected the appellant's transcript because it was submitted as a dim carbon copy rather than a clear printed or typewritten copy in black ink as required by court rule. The Court warned that unless a proper certified copy of the Bill of Exceptions was filed by December 12, any assignments of error requiring examination of testimony would be deemed abandoned.
The Court rejected the dim carbon copy transcript and ordered that unless a properly certified, clearly legible copy of the Bill of Exceptions printed or typewritten in black ink was filed by December 12, any assignments of error requiring examination of the testimony would be treated as abandoned. No costs were allowed for the improper copy.
“This entails not only much inconvenience and risk to the eyesight of the Justices who would be required to read carefully through the one hundred and thirty pages thus presented, but also entails danger to the permanency of our records, should we permit their accuracy to rest only on the future possibility of deciphering this carbon after years of rubbing and erasure.”
Establishes the Court's concerns about the practical and record-preservation problems created by accepting dim carbon copies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA. C. Teston appealed a criminal case to the Florida Supreme Court and filed a transcript of evidence consisting of approximately 130 pages in dim car…
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.
The portion of the transcript containing the evidence in this case does not conform to our rule that requires the use of “black mlc,” but, on the contrary, is a diin carbon copy. This entails not only much inconvenience and risk to the eyesight of the Justices who would be required to read carefully through the one hundred and thirty pages thus presented, but also entails danger to the permanency of our records, should we permit their accuracy to rest only on the future possibility of deciphering this carbon after years of rubbing and erasure.
Moreover, it is unfair to the county of Hillsborough “to permit it to be liable to payment at full value for first-class workmanship, when neither the county nor the court get adequate results. In a large majority of the criminal cases brought to this court the counties are charged with the costs, and to minimize these costs as much as possible our rule requires but one transcript in criminal cases and no copies are necessary as in civil cases. For the sake of reducing costs to litigants in civil cases we have permitted carbon copies that are clear and legible, but with so many copies the permanency of our records is reasonably secured, and the reasons for permitting the relaxation of the rule do not exist in criminal cases.
An order will be entered, therefore, that unless before the twelfth day of December next a certified copy of the Bill of Exceptions clearly and legibly printed or typewritten in black ink be filed in this court the assignments of error that call for an examination of the testimony will be treated as abandoned. No costs will be allowed for the copy now before the court.
Shackleford, C. J., Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur. Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Strobhar v. State, 55 Fla. 167 (Fla. 1908)…ny larger number, at the election of the pleader; employing, if the allegation is of more than one, the conjunction ‘and’ where ‘or’ occurs in the statute.” Bradley v. State, 20 Fla. 738; King v. State, 17 Fla. 183. Besides this, in Teston v. State, 50 Fla. 137, text 142, we said that the word “embezzle” and the kindred phrase “fraudulently convert to his own use” mean the same thing. In Lewis v. State, decided this term, we said that the statute “prescribes the same penalty for the offense of embezzlement…
-
Fouts v. State, 133 So. 81 (Fla. 1931)…ezzlement which charges the offense substantially in the language of Section 7249 (5148) Compiled General Laws of Florida, 1927, is sufficient. Crawford v. State, 93 Fla. 1082, 113 So. 90; Thalheim v. State, 38 Fla. 169, 20 So. 938; Teston v. State, 50 Fla. 137, 39 So. 787; Lake v. State, ___ Fla. ___, 129 So. 832. The second, seventh, eighth and eleventh assignments of error are not argued and appear to have been abandoned. The third assignment is based upon the action of the court in overruling defenda…
-
Peck v. United States, 65 F.2d 59 (7th Cir. 1933)…U. S., 156 U. S. 426, 429, 15 S. Ct. 446, 39 L. Ed. 478; U. S. v. Mason (C. C.) 177 F. 552, 558; U. S. v. Harper (C. C.) 33 E. 471, 474; State v. Hudson, 93 W. Va. 435, 117 S. E. 122; People v. O’Parrell, 247 Ill. 44, 93 N. E. 136; Teston v. State, 50 Fla. 137, 138, 39 So. 787. Where the crime defined by the statute is as specific as it is here, it is sufficient if the indictment charges appellant with its commission in the language of the statute. Jelke v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 255 P. 264, 275. The rule was…