Denton v. State

• Decision Date: 01 July 1913
• Citation: Denton v. State, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914 (Fla. 1913)
• Parties: DENTON v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

62 So. 914

66 Fla. 87

DENTON v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

July 1, 1913

Error to Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; T. P. Warlow Judge.

John V Denton was convicted of issuing a draft, without sufficient funds on deposit to meet the same, or reason to believe it would be paid, and he brings error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

In a prosecution for the statutory offense of drawing a draft without having sufficient funds to meet it, or reason to believe the draft will be paid, it is error to admit, over appropriate objections, testimony as to the nonpayment of drafts subsequently drawn by the defendant payable to others besides the complaining, witness; and such error will cause a reversal of a judgment of conviction, where there is only slight affirmative evidence that the defendant did not have reason to believe the draft in controversy would be paid.

COUNSEL J. H. Jones and C. B. Robinson, both of Orlando for plaintiff in error.

T. F. West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, of Tallahassee, for the State.

OPINION

WHITFIELD J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of the statutory offense of issuing a draft drawn upon a firm in payment for goods without having sufficient money on deposit with such firm to pay the draft, or reason to believe from an existing contract or from previous dealings with the firm that such draft would be paid, and upon nonpayment of the draft did not within 24 hours after notice of the presentation and nonpayment make full and complete restitution by returning the consideration received for such draft, or by paying the amount. Chapter 5468, Acts of 1905.

One of the main issues in a trial of this statutory offense is whether the defendant had 'reason to believe, from an existing contract or from previous dealings with the firm, that such draft would be paid.' See Whitney v. State, 63 Fla. 53, 58 So. 230.

The court sustained objections to testimony of the complaining witness Hawkins as to the payment of drafts previously drawn by the defendant. This deprived the defendant of the advantage of such testimony from the complaining witness as bearing on the vital question whether the defendant had reason to believe the draft in controversy would be paid in due course.

The uncontradicted evidence shows that Denton drew drafts upon Denton & Co., which by an arrangement with the firm of Schneider & Co. were taken up by them; the drafts being...