54 Fla. 80 | Fla. | 1907
— The plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was indicted, tried- and convicted in the circuit court of Jackson county of the crime of obtaining money by false representations and practices, and to review the sentence imposed comes here by writ of error. The indictment, omitting its formal parts, charges as follows: “That one Giles Morris on the 8th day of April, A. D. 1905, at and in the county of Jackson and the state of Florida, then and there being, did then and there designedly, by a false pretense and with intent to defraud the Citizens’ State Bank of Marianna, Florida, a corporation, obtain from the said bank, and from E. B. Erwin the cashier thereof, fifty dollars good and lawful money, currency of the United States of America, a better and more particular description of which money is to the grand jurors unknown, the said money then and there being of the .value of fifty dollars and the property of the said Citizens’ State Bank; that is to say, that on said date and in said state and-county the said Giles Morris then and there being then and there went to said bank and requested the loan oft fifty dollars; that in order to induce the said bank and its
The only error urged, or contended for here is the denial by the court of the defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment. This motion was made upon the following grounds:
1. The indictment charges no offense against him.
2. It does not appear from the indictment that the bank or E. B. Erwin delivered the said money to the defendant.
3. It does not appear from the indictment that the Citizens State Bank or E. B. Erwin parted with the ownership of the alleged fifty dollars.
4. That it appears from the indictment that the' bank and E. B. Erwin relied upon a promise to be performed in the future and not an existing fact or representation of an existing fact.
5. The verdict of the jury- is insufficient to support a judgment.
6. The verdict of the jury does not find the de-1 fendant guilty of any offense.
7. The purported verdict of the jury is on its face, the verdict of but one juror.
The first ¡four grounds of this motion challenges the sufficiency of the indictment. We have examined said indictment with great care, and think that it fully charges the offense; it charges all the ingredients of the offense as laid down in the statute, and with unusual certainty alleges the facts constituting the crime complained of. The contention that it does not appear from the indictment that the bank or its cashier E. B. Erwin delivered the money alleged to the defendant, or that said bank parted with the ownership of the alleged fifty dollars, is wholly untenable. The indictment alleges these facts with ample certainty and fulness. Contention is made here that the indictment is defective because in one place therein the name of the defendant is spelled with the letter “u” instead of with an “i,” thus: “Gules M’drris” instead of “Giles Morris.” Preceding this misspelling of the name “Giles” is the word “said.” The correct name of the defendant is repeatedly used in the indictment both prior and subsequent to this misspelling of his first name and there is no other mention of any other Morris in the indictment to which the word “said” could have had reference except 'the defendant Giles Morris — so that it is so patent that the' use of the letter “u” in the spelling of his first name in this instance was a mere lapsus pennae, as to leave no room for anything but a captious and hypercritical doubt that Giles Morris was intended. It is further contended here that the indictment shows that the bank relied, not upon the alleged representations of the defendant as to his ownership of the property mortgaged to secure the loan made to him by the bank, but upon the defendant’s accompanying promise to repay the loan. The indictment is particularly full and clear in its allegations that the said bank
The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth grounds of the motion in arrest of judgment question the sufficiency of the verdiict to support the judgment. It appears from the record that the verdict as first returned into court read as follows: “We the juror find the defendant gutly as charged. T. W. Melvin, Foreman.” It is contended here that on its face this was the verdict of but one juror only, and that the attempt at the spelling of the word “guilty” therein was so bad thal
The contention made here that the use of the word “juror” in the singular number in this verdict sh.ows that it was the verdict of but a single juror, is untenable. The word juror was preceded therein by the plural pronoun “we,” which, coupled with the fact that it was intended as the act of the collective body. While the collection of letters used in the word “gutly,” when standing alone, would require quite a stretch of the imagination to- be construed or taken-for the word “guilty,” yet when found in context with the other words used in this verdict of a jury there is no perceptible room for any doubt as to what idea the jury intended to convey thereby. We 'think the verdict as returned was sufficiently certain to found the sentence of conviction upon. But aside from this, the record shows that before the jury wras discharged the clerk read to them a correctly spelled and worded verdict of conviction, upon which the judge made the inquiry of them “So say you all?” to which inquiry each juror answered in the affirmative!. This action certainly cured any deficiency that may, to the super-critical, have existed in the verdict as first returned.
Finding no errors in the record the judgment of the circuit court in said cause is hereby affirmed at the
Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur;
Shackleford, C. J., and Cockrell and Whitfield, JJ., concur in the opinion.