Menefee v. State

Citations

• 59 Fla. 316

Syllabus

<p>1. Error, if any in acting upon motions to quash and for a'bill of particulars and upon the legal sufficiency of pleas in abatement in the absence of the accused in felonies not capital, is cured by an order for the resubmission of these matters in his presence.</p> <p>'2. A plea in abatement that three of the grand jurors were not on the list as made out and recorded by the County Commissioners, is defective in not negativing other legal methods of securing jurors.</p> <p>3. Upon trial for larceny of fertilizer, it may be shown that the accused, who was not in that business but had access to that of hi's employer, sought out a customer.</p> <p>4. To prove possession of goods by a railroad company, on trial for larceny, a private receipt purported to be signed “J. H. T., per F. M. G. (?)” is not competent evidence upon testimony that the witness knew T’s handwriting and that T. was the agent of the railroad company.</p> <p>5. One serving a term in the State’s prison for forgery and against whom other unnamed indictments are pending is not an approver and incompetent as a witness against one being tried for larceny.</p> <p>6. The court is not required to give the affirmative charge in criminal cases.</p> <p>7. A general verdict of guilty on a count charging grand larceny is not fatally defective in form and will support a conviction for grand larceny.</p>