Teston v. State
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
| Writing for the Court | SHACKLEFORD, C.J. |
| Citation | 66 Fla. 244,63 So. 433 |
| Decision Date | 04 November 1913 |
| Parties | TESTON et al. v. STATE. |
63 So. 433
66 Fla. 244
TESTON et al.
v.
STATE.
Florida Supreme Court
November 4, 1913
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 [63 So. 433] [66 Fla. 245] 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 [66 Fla. 246] 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Richardson
...filled the defendant had no title to or interest in the property by deed or adverse possession, or otherwise. The evidence also shows that [66 Fla. 244] he committed the trespasses substantially as they are alleged in the bill. The defendant, having derived whatever rights he claims from An......
-
Fulford v. State, No. 583
...Fulford who was previously committed to the Florida State Prison System by reason of a felony conviction. See Thompson v. State, 1913, 66 Fla. 244, 63 So. 423; Parrish v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 25, 105 So. 131; Pearce v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 347, 196 So. In Parrish v. State, supra, the defen......
-
Williams v. Richardson
...filled the defendant had no title to or interest in the property by deed or adverse possession, or otherwise. The evidence also shows that [66 Fla. 244] he committed the trespasses substantially as they are alleged in the bill. The defendant, having derived whatever rights he claims from An......
-
Fulford v. State, No. 583
...Fulford who was previously committed to the Florida State Prison System by reason of a felony conviction. See Thompson v. State, 1913, 66 Fla. 244, 63 So. 423; Parrish v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 25, 105 So. 131; Pearce v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 347, 196 So. In Parrish v. State, supra, the defen......