Teston v. State
| Decision Date | 24 November 1905 |
| Citation | 50 Fla. 137,39 So. 787 |
| Parties | TESTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
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
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.
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 civil cases we have permitted carbon copies that are clear and legible; but with so many copies the permanency of our records is reasonably secured, and the reasons for permitting the relaxation of the rule do not exist in criminal cases.
An order will be entered, therefore, that unless, before the 12th day of December next, a certified copy of the bill of exceptions, clearly and legibly printed or typewritten in black ink, be filed in this court, the assignments of error that call for an examination of the testimony will be treated as abandoned. No costs will be allowed for the copy now before the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strobhar v. State
...'and' where 'or' occurs in the statute.' Bradley v. State, 20 Fla. 738; King v. State, 17 Fla. 183. Besides this, in Teston v. State, 50 Fla. 137, 142, 39 So. 787, 788, we said that the word 'embezzle' and the phrase, 'fraudulently convert to his own use,' mean the same thing. In Lewis v. S......
-
Peck v. United States
...(C. C.) 33 F. 471, 474; State v. Hudson, 93 W. Va. 435, 117 S. E. 122; People v. O'Farrell, 247 Ill. 44, 93 N. E. 136; Teston v. State, 50 Fla. 137, 138, 39 So. 787. Where the crime defined by the statute is as specific as it is here, it is sufficient if the indictment charges appellant wit......
-
The State v. Hoff
...are words of art as used in the information for this particular crime, and therefore have a certain and definite meaning. Teston v. State, 50 Fla. 137, 39 So. 787. Counsel in this connection draws the inference that the statute uses the word "converts," a demand must be alleged before a con......
-
State v. Hudson
...The word "embezzle" seems to have acquired a technical legal meaning and means "fraudulently convert to his own use." Teston v. State, 50 Fla. 137, 39 So. 787; Mills v. State, 53 Neb. 263, 73 N.W. 761. neither of these cases support the proposition that the use of the word "embezzle" withou......