W. M. PRINGLE
v.
STATE
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 conviction for larceny of a steer, holding that the information sufficiently charged the offense and that the evidence supported the conviction. The court also found no reversible error in the admission or rejection of testimony.
1. The information sufficiently charged the larceny offense, and the allegation of value was surplusage. 2. There was no reversible error in the admission or rejection of testimony. 3. The evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
“The information sufficiently charges an offense under the provisions of Section 5133 R. G. S., 7234 C. G. L. Under the provisions of this Section it is not necessary to allege the value of the animal stolen.”
Establishes the court's reasoning regarding the sufficiency of the information.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW. M. Pringle was convicted of larceny of a steer based on an amended information. The information alleged the steer was worth $50.00 and belonged to …
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 Surplusage In Indictment cases and more on FLexlaw
The writ of error brings for review judgment of conviction under an amended information charging the larceny of" one steer of the value of $50.00 of the property, goods and chattels of one W. J. Bell. To the information the defendant pleaded not guilty.
The information sufficiently charges an offense under the provisions of Section 5133 R. G. S., 7234 C. G. L. Under the provisions of this Section it is not necessary to allege *734the value of the animal stolen. Mizell v. State, 38 Fla. 20, 20 Sou. 769; Mathis v. State, 70 Fla. 194, 69 Sou. 697.
The allegation in the information as to the value of the animal alleged to have been stolen may be considered as surplusage in the absence of any attack on the indictment for uncertainty.
Other questions presented resolve themselves into two' propositions. The first is whether or not the court committed reversible error in admitting certain testimony and in rejecting certain testimony offered. We have considered the record and find that it reflects no reversible error in this regard.
The other proposition is whether or not the legal evidence as a whole was sufficient to warrant the conviction of this plaintiff in error, defendant in the court below. We find the evidence amply sufficient to support the verdict and judgment.
Therefore, the judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Davis, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cable-Vision, Inc. v. Freeman, 324 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…ould be invalid because it would violate the terms of such legislative enactments and, in addition, the ordinance would be an unconstitutional impairment of the obligations of an existing contract. Jarrell v. Orlando Transit Co., 1936, 123 Fla. 776, 167 So. 664. Cable-Vision contends that it has an exclusive franchise from the county, and thus the county is barred from competing with Cable-Vision as well as from granting any competing franchises. We disagree. The county’s agreement of March 9, 1965, purpo…
-
Roney Inv. Co. v. City of Miami Beach, 127 Fla. 773 (Fla. 1937)…v. City of Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 196, 18 So. 339; Carlton, Governor, v. Mathews, 103 Fla. 301, 137 Sou. 815; Stewart v. DeLand-Lake Helen Special Road and Bridge District, etc., 71 Fla. 158, 71 Sou. 42; Jarrell v. Orlando Transit Co., 123 Fla. 776, 167 Sou. 664. So it may be said that the Town Council was vested with authority to adopt each of the ordinances and it is also to. be conceded that under the provisions of Chapter 7672 of May 25th, 1917, that the governing authorities of the City of Miami Beach…
-
N. Beach Yellow CAB Co. v. Vill. OF BAL Harbour, 135 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)…g at this decision, the courts will not normally substitute their judgment for that of the village officials. See: Schauer et al. v. City of Miami Beach et al., Fla.1959, 112 So. 2d 838, 71 A.L.R.2d 562; Jarrell v. Orlando Transit Co., 123 Fla. 776, 167 So. 664; State ex rel. Pennington v. Quigg, 94 Fla. 1056, 114 So. 859. Moreover, the record in this cause clearly demonstrates that the Village Council of the municipality was well within its discretion in reducing their permits for the year 1960-1961 to th…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mathis v. State, 70 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1915)
- Morgan B. Mizell v. State, 38 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1896)