Peeples v. State
Citations
- 46 Fla. 101
Syllabus
<p>1. A special or extra term provided by law for the circuit courts in this State is a term other than and separate and distinct from the regular spring and fall terms of these courts. The order of a circuit judge calling such a term, but designating it as an adjourned term, is not vitiated by the misnomer, nor is the term of court 'held in pursuance of the order thereby rendered illegal and without authority of law.</p> <p>2. The statutory provisions for procuring jurors in advance of a term of the circuit court, compliance with which requires action by the court officials at least fifteen days in advance of the term, do not by implication forbid the calling of a special term of such court within less than fifteen days from the date of the order. If circumstances demand that a term be held at an earlier date, jurors therefor may be procured as in other cases where none have been previously drawn or summoned.</p> <p>3. An order made at a regular term of the circuit court that a special term of the court in that county be held in the week following that fixed for the convening of the court in the next county is not illegal as ordering a term to be held in one county at a time fixed by law for holding court in another.</p> <p>4. An indictment endorsed “A true bill, Robert C. Hendry, Foreman,” and “Filed March 25th, 1903, H. E. Carlton, Clk., by J. J. Granger, D. C.,” and as to which the minutes recite that “The grand jury came into open court and presented the following indictment, to-wit: State of Florida vs. Joseph H. Peeples, larceny of a domestic animal. A true bill,” is sufficiently shown by the record to have been found or returned' by the grand jury.</p> <p>5. In an indictment for larceny the description of the property charged to 'have been stolen as “one bull, and of the goods and chattels and property of one Hooker Parker,” is not so vague and indefinite as to require a quashal of the indictment.</p> <p>6. Section 2803 of the Revised Statutes which provides
Judges: Carter, Cockrell, Hocker, Maxwell, Shackleford, Taylor
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Strobhar v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1908-01-15· cited 40×
- Cannon v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1911-06-15· cited 16×
- Oglesby v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1922-01-30· cited 12×
- Mathis v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-07-13· cited 10×
- Wade v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama· 1973-10-30· cited 8×
- Cruce v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-04-15· cited 8×
- Tillman v. SmithDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1988-11-17· cited 5×
- State v. AlfredSupreme Court of Vermont· 1913-10-13· cited 2×
- Teague v. Estate of HoskinsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-12-13· cited 1×
- AgoFlorida Attorney General Reports· 1974-06-13
- Reynolds v. HorneSupreme Court of Florida· 1924-11-06
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. HamlinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1879-05-15· cited 61×
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1888-01-15· cited 19×
- Collins v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1869-07-01· cited 15×
- State v. Van AukenSupreme Court of Iowa· 1896-10-07· cited 13×
- Mattingly v. DarwinIllinois Supreme Court· 1860-01-15· cited 5×
- Kingsley v. BagbyCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1895-10-01· cited 5×
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.