Teston v. State

Decision Date04 November 1913
Citation66 Fla. 244,63 So. 433
PartiesTESTON et al. v. STATE.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Error to Criminal Court of Record, Hillsborough County; Lee J Gibson, Judge.

Amos C Teston and another were convicted of unlawful cohabitation and bring error. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

An information charging that a man and woman 'did then and there live and continue to cohabit with one another as husband and wife, and he (the said T.) did then and there have a lawful wife living,' is fatally defective in that for aught that appears to the contrary, the woman named therein was the lawful wife of T. The motion to quash the information should have been granted.

COUNSEL Dayton & Dayton, of Dade City, for plaintiffs in error.

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

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD C.J.

Amos C. Teston and Mattie Bridges were tried and convicted upon an information charging that they 'did then and there live and continue to cohabit with one another as husband and wife, and he (the said Amos C. Teston) did then and there have a lawful wife living.'

Each of the defendants filed a motion to quash the information on various and sundry grounds and also filed a joint motion in arrest of judgment, all of which motions were denied. The information was presumably founded upon section 3526 of the General Statutes of Florida, which reads as follows:

'Whoever, having a former husband or wife living, marries another person, or continues to cohabit with such second husband or wife in this state, shall (except in the cases mentioned in the following section) be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.'

If so, we are of the opinion that it is fatally defective in that, for aught that appears therein to the contrary, the defendant Mattie Bridges was the lawful wife of the other defendant, Amos C. Teston, who are attempted to be charged with the offense of unlawful continuous cohabitation. As to the requirements for an information or indictment founded on this statute, see Cathron v. State, 40 Fla. 468, 24 So. 496, and Ferrell v. State, 45 Fla. 26, 34 So. 220. Examining the information in the light of these two cases, it is obvious that it fails to comply with the requirements therein laid down.

It the information was founded on ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT