R. J. OWENS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1912-01-01
63 Fla. 34 Florida Supreme Court (1912) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Other
Per Curiam

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam

— It clearly appears expressly or by necessary implication that the defendant whether for himself or as the agent of a corporation lending money in this State, did by contract, directly or indirectly, by way of fees or otherwise wilfully and knowingly charge the borrower of money a sum of money greater than the sum loaned and twenty-five per centum per annum thereon. This authorized a conviction under the statute.

A rehearing is denied.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Darius W. Johnson v. State, 101 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
    …should not grant a new trial upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty affirmed by the trial court if there is substantial evidence of all the essential facts. McDonald v. State, 56 Fla. 74, 47 So. 485; Powell v. State, 63 Fla. 34, 57 So. 609; Middleton v. State, 63 Fla. 24, 58 So. 225; Lancaster v. State, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 643. 'The guiding principle controlling is whether as reasonable men the jury could have found the challenged verdict from all the ■evidence adduced. Pe…
  • Mose Hodges v. State, 107 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
    …conflict of testimony on the question of whether the defendant did or did not forge these instruments. The jury found that he did and this court cannot say that the jury could not reasonably have reached the verdict that it did. In Powell v. State, 63 Fla. 34, 57 So. 609, the rule is expressed as follows: “The rule in this state is that the appellate court should not grant a new trial upon the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty, if there is some evidence of all the facts legall…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw