80 Fla. 81 | Fla. | 1920
The plaintiff in error, Arthur Brooke, and Clara A. Turneau were convicted on the second count of an information charging them with violation of Section 3261, General Statutes of Florida, by verbally and maliciously threatening Isaac A. Stewart to accuse him of the crime of assault with intent to commit rape upon Clara A. Turneau, with intent to thereby extort money from him. Brooke seeks reversal on writ of error.
Ro useful purpose will be served by reciting the testimony or attempting to give a synopsis of it.
The complaining witness testified exhaustively as to what occurred between him and the two defendants, Arthur Brooke and Clara Turneau. The accused make two defences: One that Judge Stewart committed the crime they charged him with, and the other that there was no attempt by either of them to get money from him under threats to accuse him of the commission of the crime.
There was direct conflict between the testimony of Judge Stewart and that of the defendants on all the material matters that tended to support the charge. The-trial judge gave very clear, correct and fair instructions on the province of the jury to pass upon disputed issues of fact. The result of the trial depended largely upon
The jury accepted the testimony of Judge Stewart, and rendered their verdict against the defendants.
One of the grounds for a motion for new trial is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence and weight of the evidence. This motion the court denied.
The rule is well settled in this State that:
“The refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict,
“When the trial court concurs in the verdict rendered by a jury by denying the motion for a new trial, and there is evidence to support it, appellate court should refuse to disturb it, in the absence of any showing that the jurors must have been improperly influenced by considerations outside of the evidence.” Bexley v. State, 59 Fla. 6, 51 South. Rep. 278.
Applying this rule to the testimony in this case the judgment must be affirmed.