JOHN MONTGOMERY AND J. L. MONTGOMERY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
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 affirmed a conviction for larceny of a heifer, holding that the indictment was sufficient and the judgment was legally entered. The court found that the indictment did not need to specify the value or detailed description of the animal stolen.
Yes, the indictment was sufficient as it properly charged the genus of the animal stolen, and the final judgment was legally entered. The court found no errors in the proceedings.
“It was not necessary to charge the value of nor the description of the animal stolen by color or flesh marks. It was sufficient to charge the genus or general species to which it belonged.”
establishes the court's reasoning for the sufficiency of the indictment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn and J. L. Montgomery were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted for the larceny of one heifer in Lee County, Florida, in November 1929. They wer…
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.
— Plaintiffs in error were jointly indicted, tried, and convicted for the larceny of one heifer in Lee County, Florida, in November, 1929. They were each sentenced to serve two years in the State penitentiary and took writ of error to the judgment.
It is contended here that the motion to quash the indictment should have been granted and that the final judgment was illegally entered.
The indictment was ease pursuant to Section 5133, Rev. Gen. Stats, of Florida, 1920, (Section 7234, Comp. Gen. Laws of 1927) and it is sufficient for the requirement of that statute. Mobley v. State, 57 Fla. 22, 49 So. R. 941. It was not necessary to charge the value of nor the description of the animal stolen by color or flesh marks. It was sufficient to charge the genus or general species to which it belonged. Mathis v. State, 70 Fla. 194, 69 So. R. 697; Mizelle v. State, 38 Fla. 20, 20 So. R. 769.
We have examined the assignment predicated on the illegal entry of the judgment and the record proper discloses that it was regular and legally entered. No bill of exceptions is brought up for review.
The judgment below is, therefore, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harvey v. State, 129 Fla. 289 (Fla. 1937)…been stolen was three months. “3. That the color of the said calf alleged to have been stolen was light red with white spots'.” The allegations of- the Information with contents of the Bill of Particulars were sufficient. See Montgomery v. State, 100 Fla. 782, 130 Sou. 34; Tucker v. State, 100 Fla. 1440, 131 Sou. 327. [*292] Plaintiff in error has stated twenty-five questions for our consideration. The first, challenging the sufficiency of the information, we have hereinabove disposed of. Many of the que…
Authorities Cited
- Mathis v. State, 70 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1915)
- Morgan B. Mizell v. State, 38 Fla. 20 (Fla. 1896)
- Mobley v. State, 57 Fla. 22 (Fla. 1909)