Purdy v. State
| Decision Date | 27 July 1901 |
| Citation | 31 So. 229,43 Fla. 538 |
| Parties | PURDY et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Leon county; John W. Malone, Judge.
E. H Purdy and A. Rosedale were convicted of keeping a gambling house, and bring error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Objections to the admissibility of evidence must, as a general rule, be made when it is offered, or its admissibility cannot be assigned as error.
2. In a criminal prosecution witnesses introduced on behalf of the state objected to answering certain questions propounded to them by the state on the ground that their answers would criminate them, but were required by the court to answer the questions. The defendants at the time made no objection to the testimony, and took no exceptions to the ruling of the court. Held, that the objection on part of defendants to the evidence for the first time in a motion for a new trial came too late to save the point.
COUNSEL Fred. T. Myers, for plaintiffs in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Plaintiffs in error were indicted in the Leon circuit court for keeping and maintaining a certain house, place, and room in the city of Tallahassee, Leon county, for the purpose of gaming and gambling, and for knowingly permitting therein gaming and gambling with cards at games of poker, and other games to the grand jury unknown, for money, and other things of value to said jurors unknown, and upon trial were convicted of the charge made against them. They sued out a writ of error, and have filed in this court the following assignments of error viz.: (1) The court erred in compelling the witness James to answer the several questions propounded to him by the state attorney, to the answering of which the witness objected on the ground that the answer thereto would tend to criminate himself, thereby compelling the witness to testify to matters prejudicial to the defendants. (2) The same assignment as the first, in compelling the witness Demilly to answer a question propounded to him. (3) The court erred in overruling defendants' motion for a new trial, which, in addition to the above assignments, contained the grounds that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and to the law.
The bill of exceptions fails to show any objection on the part of defendants, ruling of the court thereon, or exception made or taken at the time of the admission in evidence of any testimony by the witnesses, or either of them, mentioned in assignments 1 and 2, drawn out by questions propounded to them, to the answering of which they objected on the ground that it would criminate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shaw v. Postal Tel. Cable Co.
... ... and to guard against the consequences of its negligence, and ... is, under our law, and the public policy of this state, ... "Regarding ... and treating this as an action for the wrong done by the ... company to the appellant by its breach of its duty to ... ...
-
Sims v. State
...of error based on the inadmissibility under the rules of legal procedure of the evidence so admitted without objection. See Purdy v. State, 43 Fla. 538, 31 So. 229; v. Taylor, 41 Fla. 77, 25 So. 287; Hoodless v. Jernigan, 46 Fla. 213, 35 So. 656; Tuten v. Gazan, 18 Fla. 751. General objecti......
- Sigsbee v. State
-
Schley v. State
...it if prejudicial.' Lewis v. State, 121 Ala. 1, 25 So. 1017; Jarvis v. State, 138 Ala. 17, 34 So. 1025. As was said in Purdy v. State, 43 Fla. 538, 31 So. 229, 'Objections to the admissibility of evidence must, as general thing, be made when it was offered, or its admissibility cannot be as......