Kneale v. Kneale
| Decision Date | 15 September 1953 |
| Citation | 67 So.2d 233 |
| Parties | KNEALE v. KNEALE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Malcolm Lewis Kneale, Miami, for appellant.
S. Grover Morrow, Miami, for appellee.
Following a rash of procedural sparring not necessary to detail, appellee secured a divorce from appellant for extreme cruelty. The defendant has appealed from the final decree. In a case like this, unless we are convinced that an opinion will add to the law of the subject or will otherwise serve some useful purpose, we are prone to affirm by per curiam order. This opinion is proffered in the hope that it will correct a too frequent violation of Supreme Court Rule 20, 30 F.S.A., regulating the statement of questions, and Rule 11(2) regulating the preparation and abbreviation of records.
The divorce was granted for extreme cruelty on the part of defendant to complainant, yet we are confronted with a record of 300 pages and a brief of 56 pages, in which ten questions are exhibited. It would be unheard of for a chancellor to make ten harmful errors in a run-of-the-mill divorce case. In fact, in most litigated causes there are usually not exceeding one or two leading questions and not many more secondary ones, that are inherent in the case.
The nonobservance of Rule 20 and Rule 11(2) is no worse in this case than it is in many others. Any ambiguous or alternative statement of a question or overloading of a record is contrary to the rules. A 56 page brief in an appeal like this is inexcusable. To bring page after page of exhibits and record that is unabbreviated and much of which is impertinent to the questions raised is likewise inexcusable and violative of the rule.
At least eight or nine of the questions presented have to do with matters in the sound discretion of the chancellor. Typical is question four as follows:
'Where complainant's witnesses were within the jurisdiction of the lower court; and where the lower court permitted complainant to take said witnesses' testimony, de benne esse, over timely objection of defendant, on the alleged ground that said witnesses were temporarily leaving the jurisdiction of the lower court; and where said witnesses had returned to the situs of the trial during the actual trial; and where said witnesses were within the jurisdiction of the lower court long before the conclusion of taking of testimony; did not master err in admitting into evidence, over timely objection of defendant, depositions de benne esse, of said witnesses?'
The primary trouble with this question is lack of skill, sequence or logic in statement. Moreover, it is laden with evidentiary substance or matters of inducement. It involves matters that were entirely in the discretion of the chanceller and harmful error is not shown. Every question should be cast in concise, direct language without duplication, it should embody nothing but the point of law or fact that is brought to the attention of, and to be adjudicated by, the Court, and should not be stated in the alternative. In compliance with Rule 20, I suggest the following as an appropriate statement of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cone v. State
...We cannot refrain from calling attention to the fact that the manner in which these questions were cast, was condemned in Kneale v. Kneale, Fla., 67 So.2d 233. The judgment appealed from is accordingly Affirmed. ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, SEBRING, HOBSON and MATHEWS, JJ., concur. DREW, J.,......
-
State ex rel. Feldman v. Kelly
...have propounded one question, and respondent has propounded six questions for us to consider but none of them comply with Kneale v. Kneale, Fla., 67 So.2d 233, wherein we attempted to define a clear and concise rule for stating questions on appeal. Compliance with this rule would pinpoint t......
-
Ritter v. Bentley
...in the Supreme Court may be imposed. Appellant has urged eight questions, none of which complies with the rule prescribed in Kneale v. Kneale, Fla., 67 So.2d 233, to overcome the doctrine of the cited cases. In fine, it is contended that the bond in this case was posted before the decision ......
-
Ames v. Ames, 3352
...the circumstances here require the husband to pay a reasonable sum for the fees of his wife's attorney and court costs. See Kneale v. Kneale, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 233; Kahn v. Kahn, Fla.1955, 78 So.2d The decree is affirmed except as to that part imposing on defendant the fees of her attorney......
-
Shakespeare in the Law
...165 Hamlet, 11, ii, 375. People v. Langston, 131 Cal. App.3d 7 (1982)(Brown, J.). 166 Merchant of Venice, 1, i. 116. Kneale v. Kneale, 67 So.2d 233, 234 (Fla. 1953) (Terrell, J.). 167 Julius Caesar, IV iii 40 People v. Gardner, 56 Cal. App.3d 91, 97 n.2,128 Cal. Rptr. 101, 106 n.2 j.). 168 ......