GEORGE BURNS AND LESTER B. MILLER, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed writs of error filed by Burns and Miller because the transcripts lacked properly authenticated bills of exceptions and judgments as required by law. The court held that a clerk's certificate can verify the accuracy of a transcript of a bill of exceptions but cannot authenticate the bill of exceptions itself or verify that copies of verdicts and judgments within it are true copies of the court's records.
A clerk's certificate can verify only the correctness of the transcript of what appears in the bill of exceptions itself, not the authenticity of the bill of exceptions or the accuracy of copies of verdicts and judgments as true copies of the court's records. Because the verdicts and judgments were not properly certified as appearing in the recorded minutes of the court, the writs of error must be dismissed.
“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
The court establishes that a clerk's certificate cannot authenticate a bill of exceptions itself, only verify the accuracy of a transcript of it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBurns and Miller filed writs of error in the Florida Supreme Court. The transcripts submitted contained purported bills of exceptions that included co…
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.
Whitfield, J.
The transcripts of the record herein each contains what purports to be a bill of exceptions, but as such purported bill of exceptions was not authenticated as required by law, it should be disregarded. Included within the purported bill of exceptions are copies of the verdicts and also of the judgments to which the writs of error were taken, and such verdicts and judgments do not appear elsewhere in the transcripts. The certificate of the clerk of the Criminal Court of Record attached to each transcript is “that the foregoing pages * * * constitute a true copy of all the proceedings and a correct transcript of the record of the judgment '* * as appears upon the files and records of my office.” Apparently the clerk endeavored to use the certificate prescribed by Circuit Court Rule 103, which is permissible in criminal cases. The clerk’s certificate, however, can give no authenticity or authority to the purported bill of exceptions. If the verdicts and judgments were in the transcripts outside of the purported bill of exceptions, they would clearly be covered by the clerk’s certificate; but as the clerk of'the Court has no part in making a bill of exceptions, but merely files and copies what is given to him as a bill of exceptions, the clerk’s certificate attests the correctness of the transcript he makes of the bill of exceptions, but not of its authenticity; therefore, the certificate of the clerk in this case verifies the correctness of the transcript of the contents of the purported bill of exceptions including the copies of the verdicts and judgments contained therein; but the clerk’s certificate does not verify the correctness of the copy of the verdicts and judgments as being true copies of the records of the Court. In other words, the clerk’s 'certificate in effect is that-the transcript constitutes a correct transcript of the record of the judgment as it appears in the purported bill of exceptions, not as the judgment appears in the recorded minutes of the Court. . There being no properly certified copy of the judgments, the writ of error should be dismissed.
It is so ordered.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Dade Cnty. v. Little River Valley Drainage Dist., 119 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…ds to be expended for the purpose of paying off and discharging duly imposed assessments for improvements to such school property, when and only when the legislature so authorizes by a specific enactment. See, also, Southern Drainage Dist. v. State, 93 Fla. 599, 113 So. 561; City of Miami v. Board of Public Instruction, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 901; Board of Public Instruction v. City of Jacksonville, Fla.1956, 86 So. 2d 887. A statute passed in 1953,1 after the period involved here, authorized the Board [*326…