Underhill v. State

Citations

• 81 Fla. 234
• 87 So. 637

Syllabus

<p>1. At common law it is not sufficient to allege the ownership of stolen property in a partnership without giving the names of the partners.</p> <p>2. Where no question of the sufficiency of an indictment alleging the ownership of stolen property in a partnership without giving the names of the partners was raised before the trial and verdict of guilty and no objections were interposed to the admissibility or competency of testimony to the effect that the alleged owner was a partnership composed of individuals whose names were given, a judgment of conviction will not be reversed upon the ground that the verdict is not supported by the evidence.</p> <p>3. The defect in an indictment charging the accused with larceny from a partnership without giving the names of the individuals composing the same when not called to the court’s attention before trial and verdict of conviction is not such as to require a reversal of the judgment where it does not appear that the accused was misled or embarrassed, but will be regarded as cured by the statute, Section 3962, General Statutes of the State of Florida.</p>