Meachem v. State

Citations

• 45 Fla. 71

Syllabus

<p>1. Where two parties speaking different languages, anff who can not understand each other, converse through an interpreter, the words of the interpreter which are their necessary medium of communication are adopted by both and made a part of their conversation, and the interpretation under such circumstances is prima facie to -be deemed correct. In such cases either party or a third party who , hears the conversation may testify tp it as he under-1 stands it, although for his understanding of what was said by one of the parties he is dependent on the interpretation which was a part of the conversation. The fact that such conversation was had through an interpreter affects the weight, but nqt the competency of the evidence.</p> <p>2. The ownership of property embezzled must he laid and proved with the samp particularity as in larceny, hut in -each offense the proof is sufficient if it shows a qualified or special property in the person alleged to be the owner.</p> <p>S. A witness may testify tq what he heard said in a conversation between other parties, even though it is not shown that he heard the entire conversation then. had between them.</p>