Teston v. State

• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Teston v. State, 50 Fla. 137, 39 So. 787 (Fla. 1905)
• Decision Date: 24 November 1905
• Parties: TESTON v. STATE.

39 So. 787

50 Fla. 137

TESTON v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

November 24, 1905

Error to Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; H. C Gordon, Judge.

A. C Teston was convicted of crime, and brings error. Order for filing bill of exceptions entered.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

A dim carbon copy of the bill of exceptions in the transcript of the record of a criminal cause violates the rule, is not a permanent record, and the errors based thereon will not be considered.

COUNSEL J. J. Lunsford, for plaintiff in error.

W. H Ellis, Atty, Gen., for the State.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The portion of the transcript containing the evidence in this case does not conform to our rule that requires the use of 'black ink,' but, on the contrary, is a dim carbon copy. This entails not only much inconvenience and risk to the eyesight of the justices, who would be required to read carefully through the 130 pages thus presented, but also entails danger to the permanency of our records, should we permit their accuracy to rest only on the future possibility of deciphering this carbon after years of rubbing and erasure.

Moreover it is unfair to the county of Hillsborough to permit it to be liable to payment at full value for first-class workmanship when neither the county nor the court get adequate results. In a large majority of the criminal cases brought to this court the counties are charged with the costs, and to minimize these costs as much as possible our rule requires but one transcript in criminal cases, and no copies are necessary, as in civil cases. For the sake of reducing costs to litigants in...