69 Fla. 355 | Fla. | 1915
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Criminal Court of Record for Hillsborough Co.unty.of the statutory offense of withholding from his minor children; the means of support,- and took writ of ..error.
It appears from the hill of exceptions that a motion was made and ..overruled to quash the information on the ground that there is pending in the Circuit Court of Hills-borough County a divorce proceeding in which the defendant here is' defendant, wherein a decree of divorce and for alimony was rendered, and wherein a writ of ne exeat was issued and a bond given. .Even if this may be regarded as a proper motion to' quash the information, it appears only in the bill of exceptions and not in the transcript of the-record proper, therefore it can not be considered here.
Motions to quash indictments and the ruling of the court thereon form part of the record proper in a cause, and have no place in the bill of exceptions, and, when evidenced to an appellate court only by a bill' of exceptions, such court cannot consider assignments of error based upon' the overruling of such motions. Bell v. State, 61 Fla. 6, 54 South. Rep. 799.
The court permitted a witness to give hearsay testimony that the defendant has a month’s pay in his pocket and would not give his former wife any of it, though it appears he did1 make a payment afterwards for alimony. This and other hearsay and irrelevant testiinony was. erroneously permitted to be given over objection, and it was prejudicial to the defendant.
In permitting the present- wife to testify on cross-examination over objections as to matters having no. relation
The judgment is reversed.
