81 Fla. 234 | Fla. | 1921
Plaintiff in error was indicted upon a charge of larceny. The property alleged to have been stolen was one suit of clothes, of the value of $55, of the goods and chattels of The Boston Store. There was a verdict of guilty. Motion for new trial was made and denied and from the judgment imposing sentence writ of error was taken.
The assignment of error which is argued is that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. ■ The point insisted upon is that the ownership of the property charged to have been stolen is not proved as alleged.
The proof is that “The Boston Store,” the owner of the property alleged to have been stolen, is a partnership composed of S. Rosin and I. Silverman, individuals.
Upon the question of whether in an indictment for
The sufficiency of the indictment in this case was' not tested by demurrer or motion to quash. Nor was any objection interposed to the evidence offered to show that The Boston Store, the alleged owner, was a partnership composed of the individuals named.
By Sec. 3962, Gen. Stats, same Florida Compiled Laws, it is provided that “No indictment shall be quashed or judgment arrested or new trial be granted on account of any defect in the form of the indictment, or of misjoinder of offenses or for any cause whatsoever, unless the court shall be of the opinion that the indictment' is so vague, indistinct and indefinite as to mislead the accused and embarrass him in the preparation of his defense or expose him after conviction or acquittal to substantial danger of a new prosecution for the same offense.”
Affirmed.
Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur.