Telfair v. State

Citations

• 58 Fla. 110

Syllabus

<p>1. In a criminal prosecution for uttering a forged instrument a charge that “If you believe from the evidence that the defendant himself forged the instrument in question, no matter how guilty the evidence shows him to be of uttering it, you must find him not guilty,” is properly refused, since whether the defendant was guilty of the forgery was not within the issues being tried. For the same reason pleas and evidence as to' a former acquittal of the charge of forgery were properly rejected.</p> <p>2. Evidence de hors the record in support of a motion for new trial should be incorporated in the bill of exceptions.</p> <p>3. Where a written instrument is admitted in evidence, testimony as to its then and its former condition may not be reversible error.</p> <p>4. When a written instrument is relevant evidence the name by which it is called is immaterial.</p> <p>5. Testimony given on re-direct examination -is not necessarily subject to the rule governing evidence in rebuttal.</p> <p>6. The action of the court in saying to counsel during the argument that a paper in evidence is not a rent note, but an evidence of a purchase, and that counsel must not read a part of the instrument and make argument on it without reading all of it, is not reversible error.</p> <p>7. Where there is evidence to sustain a second verdict of guilty and no errors appear in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.</p>