Skip to main content

Long v. State

Citations

  • 42 Fla. 509

Syllabus

<p>1. An indictment under section 2516 Revised Statutes need not allege that defendant severed from the realty, the property alleged to have been carried away; nor that the trespass was committed without the consent of the owner of the land where it is charged that it was willfully committed, and a description of the realty trespassed upon as “the land of E- F. S-, to-wit; a pinery located on the northeast quarter of the northwest quar- , ter of section two, township twenty-three, south, range twenty-nine, east,” is sufficiently definite.</p> <p>2. Pineapple plants growing in the soil are parcel of the realty within the meaning of section 2516 Revised Statutes and not farm products or fruit within the meaning of section 2517 Revised Statutes, as amended by Chapter 4531; act of 1897.</p> <p>3. Under Section 2893 Revised Statutes it is not error to refuse to quash an information upon the ground that it charges several distinct felonies in separate counts, unless such information is so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused, 'embarrass him in the preparation of his defence, or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offence.</p> <p>4. Proof that the title to and management of a pinery alleged to have been trespassed upon were in the person alleged in the information, is sufficient to sustain the allegation as to ownership, even though the proof shows further that other persons were interested in the profits of the pinery.</p> <p>5. In order to convict one accused of wilfully committing a trespass upon realty by taking and carrying away therefrom pineapple plants parcel of the realty the proof must show that thg particular plants alleged to have been taken were in fact taken, but it is not necessary that the particular plants be produced before the jury, or if produced along with others of the same character and variety, that witnesses should be able to separate the identical plants taken from

Judges: Carter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.