Everett v. State
Citations
- 33 Fla. 661
Syllabus
<p>1. A joint indictment against two persons, charging by proper averments the commission of a crime by the one, and that the other was present aiding, abetting and assisting in the commission of the said crime, is sufficient as to the latter without repeating in the allegations as to him the acts that constitute the crime charged.</p> <p>2. Section 1094 of the Revised Statutes, as adopted and now in the office of the Secretary of State, contained the following pro■vision, viz: “Married persons shall be competent witnesses for or against each other in civil cases wherein either of them is a party and is allowed feUtestify.” This provision was not in the Revised Statutes as published, biit in the construction of said statutes, in connection with the legislation of 1891, such provision must be considered as a part of said revision.</p> <p>.3. Chapter 4029, acts of 1891, on the subject of married persons testifying in civil cases, not only includes the provisions of Section 1094, as contained in the Revised Statutes as adopted, but is more extensive as to permitting such persons to testify in such cases; and, according to the rule of construction prescribed by the Legislature in Section 1 Chapter 4055, acts of 1891, must be regarded as superseding said Section 1094 when the Revised Statutes went into effect.</p> <p>4. Chapter 4029, acts of 1891, providing that in the trial of civil actions neither husband nor wife shall be excluded as witnesses where either of them is an interested party to the suit pending, and Section 2863 of the Revised Statutes, that “the provisions .of law relative to the competency of witnesses in civil cases shall obtain also in criminal cases,” do not conflict with each ■other, and should be construed in harmony as parts of one and the same body of statutory law enacted by the same legislative body at the same session.</p> <p>,-5. Under Chapter 4029, acts of 1891, and Section 2863 of the Revised Statutes, the rule as to the competency of husban
Judges: Mabky, íraney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Hoodless v. JerniganSupreme Court of Florida· 1903-06-15· cited 82×
- Elliott v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1919-05-12· cited 18×
- Holland v. WebsterSupreme Court of Florida· 1901-01-15· cited 16×
- Ex parte BevilleSupreme Court of Florida· 1909-06-15· cited 13×
- Walker v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-06-15· cited 12×
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1921-10-22· cited 12×
- Hayes v. ToddSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-06-15· cited 7×
- State v. NorrisDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1977-11-08· cited 2×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Jones v. DexterSupreme Court of Florida· 1859-07-01· cited 39×
- McGill v. McGillSupreme Court of Florida· 1882-06-15· cited 28×
- Schnabel v. BettsSupreme Court of Florida· 1887-01-15· cited 14×
- Storrs v. StorrsSupreme Court of Florida· 1887-01-15· cited 8×
- Bushnell v. DennisonSupreme Court of Florida· 1869-07-01· cited 6×
- Steele v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1894-01-15· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.