Ammons vs. The State.-Opinion of Court. If credit is given to this testimony and the admissions of the prisoner, there can be no doubt that the verdict of the jury was according to the evidence. It is urged, however, by the counsel for the prisoner, that they should have disregarded the testimony of Mrs. Sutley; that her manner of testifying, her expressions of ignorance on many questions, her feelings towards the prisoner, and conflicts with the other witnesses, should have rendered her testimony unworthy of credit. Upon examining the evidence, it will be seen that attempts were made on the trial to impeach her, as well as the witness Carol. The testimony on both sides was before the jury, and the degree of credit was with them. This court has been frequently called on to review the question as to how far it will interfere to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial where there has been a conflict of testimony, and we have ruled as we do now, that where there is conflicting evidence, and the verdict is not manifestly against the weight of evidence, the court will not interfere to set aside the verdict of a jury. Macon vs. Tallahassee R. R. Co., 8 Fla., 299. In this case the credibility of the witnesses was submitted to the jury, and the jury believed the testimony. It would be something rare for this court to decide on the degree of credit to be given to a witness, and to decide on the effect of the evidence. Were they to do so, they might justly be charged with usurping the province of the jury. The counsel for the prisoner contends with much earnestness that the evidence discloses provocations which ought to extenuate the homicide, and that there was error in the charge of the court, and that the charge misled the jury. By the statute law of this State, it is declared that, "the common law of England, in relation to crimes anú misdemeanors, except so far as the same relates to the modes Ammons vs. The State.-Opinion of Court. and degree of punishment, shall be, and the same is hereby adopted and declared to be in full force in this State." Thom. Digest, 489. By reference to the common law of England as laid down in 1 Russell on Crimes, page 514, it will be seen that the charge is in the very words of the law as there stated. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that there was no error in the charge of the court, and that the judgment of the court upon the verdict was in conformity with the law and according to the evidence. The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed. Let this case be remanded to the Circuit Court in and for the county of Calhoun, and the judge holding said court be directed to cause the said John Ammons to be brought before him in open court, and nothing appearing why sentence of death should not again be passed upon him, said Judge, in open court, do sentence the said John Ammons to be executed at such time and place as the court may deem fit and proper, and that said court do cause said sentence to be carried into execution. INDEX TO NINTH VOLUME OF FLORIDA REPORTS. ADMINISTRATORS AND EXECUTORS- 1.An action at law for a distributive share of an intestate's property cannot be 2. Whether a final settlement in the Probate office and an order to pay over to 3. The settlement of an executor's or administrator's accounts in the Probate 4. Under the policy of the several statutes regulating the administration of 5. The object and design of the statute of non-claim is threefold: First, to facil- 6. Where there has been unreasonable delay on the part of a distributee to call 7. Property devised in trust, after payment of debts, is assets in the hands of Index to Ninth Volume. 8. The trustee cannot get possession of such property, except through the administrator, and therefore, may sue him and his sureties for it; and such suit may be brought without any order having been made by the Judge of Probate. Woodfin et als vs. McNealy et al., 256. 9. An executor or administrator under the proviso of the 24th sec. of the Act regulating judicial proceedings, approved Nov. 23, 1828, may deny the signature of his testator or intestate to any bond, note, or other instrument purporting to have been signed by him, and also plead a want or failure of consideration by plea put in without being sworn to, and after the cause is called on the appearance docket, on giving reasonable notice, and the effect of such plea will be the same as at Common Law, that is, to require the plaintiff to prove the signature, and the defendant to prove the want or failure of consideration. 10. If the executor or administrator desires to throw the onus of proving the consideration on the plaintiff, he must put in his pleas under oath before the cause is called on the appearance docket. Knight vs. Knight, 283. ADVANCEMENT 1.An advancement to a husband by his father-in-law is an advancement to the wife. 2. An agreement between the father-in-law and the husband that the former would never enforce the payment of a debt due to him from the latter, but that the same should be considered an advancement to the wife; said agreement having been complied with by the father-in-law during his life, makes the amount of said debt an advancement, which ought to be brought into hotch-pot. Lindsay and Wife vs. Platt, 150. APPEALS 1. To give the Court of Appeals of the Territory of Florida jurisdiction of an appeal from a decree of the Superior Court, it was necessary there should be a final decree in the cause; appeals did not lie in that Court from interlocutory decrees or orders. 2. This court will not be bound by the decision of the Court of Appeals of the Territory in a case where it appears said Court had no jurisdiction. 3. When there has been no final decree in a cause, excepting the one appealed from, this Court may, on appeal, examine the whole case, so far as it has been acted upon by the Circuit Court, and all prior or interlocutory orders or decrees any way connected with the merits of the final decree are open for consideration, notwithstanding such order or decree may be one of a Court of |