Hall v. State

103 So. 617, 89 Fla. 39

• Court: Supreme Court of Florida
• Decided: January 31, 1925
• Status: Published

Opinion

Whitfield, P. J.

This writ of error was taken to a judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree.

The only assignment of error is the denial of a motion for new trial. There is no duly authenticated bill of exceptions in the transcript; and as a motion for new trial can be considered by the appellate court only when it is prop erly incorporated in a bill of exceptions, (the assignment of error is unavailing. Revell v. State, 85 Fla. 402, 96 South. Rep. 156; Fortner v. State, 87 Fla. 198, 99 South. Rep. 553.

No error appears in the record proper, therefore the judgment should be affirmed. See B. F. Lasseter & Co. v. Zapf, 57 Fla. 89, 48 South. Rep. 749; Carter v. Stockton, 60 Fla. 33, 53 South. Rep. 450; Anderson v. Winer & Whaley, 50 Fla. 177, 39 South. Rep. 31; Bardwell v. State, 49 Fla. 1, 38 South. Rep. 511; Jackson v. State, 84 Fla. 646; 94 South. Rep. 505; Granquist v. State, 86 Fla. 32, 97 South. Rep. 205; Lanier v. Shayne, 86 Fla. 385, 98 South. Rep. 71; DeSoto Holding Co. v. Boyer, 85 Fla. 517, 97 South. Rep. 205.

Affirmed.

West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Browne, J-., concur in the opinion.