(90 So.) We agree with the trial judge that the argument, or comparison, was not unfair to the defendant. The purpose was to impress upon the jury that, although the defendant was entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt about his guilt or innocence, the jury should not acquit him merely because of a possibility of his being innocent, if, in fact, the evidence did not leave any reasonable doubt that he was guilty. The statement, in substance, that the law which gives the accused in every case the benefit of a reasonable doubt has caused many guilty men to escape punishment, was not a suggestion that the accused in this case was not entitled to the benefit of any such doubt. [2, 3] The other bill of exception was reserved to the overruling of defendant's motion for a new trial. The motion was founded upon the averment that there was no evidence to support a verdict of embezzle ment, and that the verdict was therefore not responsive to the evidence. A transcript of all of the testimony heard on the trial is annexed to the bill. It is not the province of this court to judge of the sufficiency of the evidence, if there was any evidence at all, of a fact essential to a conviction. The record in this case does contain evidence that defendant embezzled a diamond ring, as charged in the bill of information. It is true there is evidence that he obtained possession of the ring by a false pretense, by depositing, as a guaranty that he would return the ring, a check for $500 on a bank in which he had not then and had never had any money. If he had bought the ring for the worthless check, the crime would not have been embezzlement. But that was not the case, according to the evidence. The prosecuting witness testified that defendant borrowed the ring for the avowed purpose of showing it to another party, and promising to return it to its owner at a time and place stated, and that he failed to return the ring. The verdict and sentence are affirmed. Equity will not cancel a judgment not shown to be void, where the complainants have not asserted their rights to an appellate review of the judgment, and are guilty of laches and do not offer to do equity. Bill by C. G. Sutton and another against the Bank of Mulberry. Demurrer to complaint sustained, and complainants appeal. Order sustaining demurrer affirmed. R. B. Huffaker, of Bartow, for appellants. Wilson & Swearingen, of Bartow, for appellee. WHITFIELD, J. In a bill of complaint brought April 6, 1921, against the bank by C. G. Sutton and O. O. Hubbard, it is alleged that the bank on August 10, 1915, obtained in the county court of Polk county a judgment against the complainants and others for $529.90 and costs, that the judgment was on August 15, 1915, recorded in the foreign judgment book of the public records of the county; "that the said judgment has not been paid or satisfied; that your orators have refused to pay the said judgment because the same is void for the reason hereinafter stated, but that the defendant refuses to cancel or satisfy the said judgment; that the said judgment, although void, constitutes a cloud on the title of your orators' lands, and prevents your orators from making a sale of their lands for the real value of same;" that the judgment is void because the jurisdiction of the county court is of amounts not exceeding $500, while the judgA cancellation ment is for $529.90 and costs. of the judgment is prayed. The bill of complaint was demurred to on the following grounds: "(1) There is no equity in said bill. "(2) The allegations thereof are not sufficient to entitle the complainants to the relief therein prayed, or to any relief in a court of equity. thereof, but that the court in which the judg"(3) It does not appear from the allegations ment therein mentioned was rendered had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subjectmatter of the suit. "(4) From the allegations of the bill, it is made to appear that the complainants had their remedy by writ of error, certiorari, appeal, and otherwise, and failed to take advantage of or exercise the same. "(5) It appears from the said bill that the complainants still have ample and adequate remedy at law. "(6) No reason or excuse for the failure of complainants to have exercised their different remedies at law is shown by said bill. "(7) From the allegations of said bill, it is made to appear that the complainants are guilty of laches, and on account thereof stand barred from seeking the relief prayed. "(8) The complainants do not in and by their bill offer to do equity. "(9) Said bill contains no allegations of payment of the indebtedness upon which said judgment was recovered, nor does it show that the complainants have or had any defense to said Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County; action, nor do they now offer to make payment John S. Edwards, Judge. of defendants' claim against them, which might For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes become barred by the statutes of limitation, if [ from a judgment or order therein, the former the decree prayed be rendered." All the grounds of the demurrer were sustained by the chancellor except the third. The complainants appealed. The verdict in the county court attached to the bill of complaint finds for the plaintiff bank "in the sum of $400 principal, $79.10 interest, and $50 attorney's fees, total $529.90." The judgment as rendered is in "the sum of $529.90 damages" and costs. As the nature of the action in the county court does not appear, it may have been a case in which attorney fees are allowed as a part of the costs in the case. In that event, the judgment is merely erroneous in including the attorney fee as damages, thereby rendering the judgment voidable and not void, since the judgment could be construed with reference to the record and the verdict, and the verdict separates the recovery proper from the attorney fee allowed. It is the duty of the complainant in this suit to make a clear showing of the equity asserted. If the judgment of the county court is erroneous it could have been corrected in proper appellate proceedings. If the judgment is void it may be stricken at any time, and may be collaterally assailed. The complainants have not availed themselves of the remedies open to them, and do not come with due diligence, and do not offer to do equity. See Dibble v. Truluck, 12 Fla. 185; Budd v. Long, 13 Fla. 288; Finegan v. City of Fernandina, 18 Fla. 127. They did not test the correctness of the judgment by appropriate appellate procedure, and they have delayed from 1915 | to 1921, during which time the demand may be barred; and they alleged they have refused to pay the judgment because it "is void," and because they do not owe the amount, and they have not shown the judgment to be wholly null and void. appeal. Appeal dismissed on motion of ap pellee's counsel. Evans Haile, of Gainesville, for appellants. Thomas W. Fielding, of Gainesville, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for appellee. ASHMORE v. FALKNER. (Supreme Court of Florida. June Term, 1921.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County. Action between James R. Ashmore and Thomas Falkner, and, from a judgment or order therein, the former appeals. Appeal dismissed on motion of appellee's counsel. Milam & Milam, of Jacksonville, for appellant. Wm. K. Jackson, of Jacksonville, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for appellee. WILDMAN et al. v. HIGHSMITH et al. (Supreme Court of Florida. June Term, 1921.) Error to Circuit Court, Dade County. Action between F. A. Wildman and others and J. Highsmith, administrator, etc., and others. From a judgment or order therein, the of counsel for defendants in error. former bring error. Writ dismissed on motion Payne & McElya, of Miami, for plaintiffs in error. Shutts & Bowen, of Miami, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for defendants in error. Because of laches and failure to duly assert their rights to a review of the judgment, and because it is not clearly shown that the judgment complained of is void, and because no offer is made to do equity, the order sus- HOTEL HALCYON CORPORATION v. DAVtaining the demurrer to the bill of complaint seeking affirmative equity relief was proper, and it is hereby affirmed. BROWNE, C. J., and TAYLOR, ELLIS, and WEST, JJ., concur. เป ENPORT et al. (Supreme Court of Florida. June Term, 1921.) Error to Circuit Court, Dade County. Action between the Hotel Halcyon Corporation and Thomas S. Davenport and others. From a judgment or order therein, the former brings error. Writ dismissed on motion of HARRISON et al. v. FIRST STATE BANK counsel for plaintiff in error. (Supreme Court of Florida. June Term, Appeal from Circuit Court, Alachua County. Shutts & Bowen, of Miami, for plaintiff in error. Price, Price & Small, of Miami, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Writ of error dismissed (90 So.) TOWN OF DELRAY v. SMITH et al. (Supreme Court of Florida. June Term, 1921.) Error to Circuit Court, Palm Beach County. Action between the Town of Delray and Lot L. Smith and others. From a judgment or order therein, the former brings error. Writ dismissed on motion of counsel for defendants in error. Currie & Yeomans, of West Palm Beach, for plaintiff in error. S. C. Kearley, of West Palm Beach, for defendants in error. PER CURIAM. Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for defendants in error. WAVERLY FLORIDA NURSERIES CO. v. GIBBONS. (Supreme Court of Florida. June Term, 1921.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Polk County. Action between the Waverly Florida Nurseries Company and G. H. Gibbons. From a judgment or order therein, the former appeals. Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant's counsel. R. B. Huffaker, of Bartow, and James F. Glen, of Tampa, for appellant. Error to Circuit Court, Calhoun County. Contest by J. M. Atkins against C. D. Clark. From a judgment or order therein, the former Dickinson & Dickinson, of Orlando, for ap- brings error. Writ dismissed, on præcipe of pellee. counsel for plaintiff in error. Action between Felix Brunson and Daisy Brunson. From a judgment or order therein the former appeals. Appeal dismissed on motion of appellee's counsel. C. D. Abbott, of West Palm Beach, for appellant. M. D. Carmichael, of West Palm Beach, for appellee. CITY OF SANFORD v. MAXWELL et al. (Supreme Court of Florida. Jan. 17, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County; James W. Perkins, Judge. Action between the City of Sanford, a municipal corporation, and R. C. Maxwell and others. From an order and judgment therein, PER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed on motion plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. of counsel for appellee. CITY OF TALLAHASSEE v. COURTNEY. (Supreme Court of Florida. June Term, 1921.) Error to Circuit Court, Leon County. Action between the City of Tallahassee and Thomas Courtney. From a judgment or order therein, the former brings error. Writ dismissed on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. Myers & Myers, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error. PER CURIAM. Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for plaintiff in error. George G. Herring, of Sanford, for appellant. George A. De Cottes, of Sanford, for appellees. fore been submitted to the court upon the tranPER CURIAM. This cause having heretoscript of the record of the order and decree aforesaid, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said order and decree. It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the said order and decree of the circuit court be and the same are hereby affirmed. All concur. REDDING v. REDDING. (Supreme Court of Florida. June Term, 1921.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Pasco County. Action between William M. Redding and Mollie P. Redding. From a judgment or from an order therein, the former appeals. Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant's counsel. O. L. Dayton, of Dade City, for appellant. SHAW v. MODEL LAND CO. Action between Charles Shaw and the Model Land Company, a corporation. From a judgment therein, the former brings error. Affirmed. G. C. McClure and Hugo C. Enstrom, both of Miami, for plaintiff in error. Rose, Brown, Twyman & Scott, of Miami, and Scott M. Loftin and Robert H. Anderson, both of Jacksonville, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. This cause having heretoPER CURIAM. Appeal dismissed on motion fore been submitted to the court upon the of counsel for appellant. transcript of the record of the judgment afore- FARMERS' BANK & TRUST CO. et al. v. (Supreme Court of Florida. Jan. 17, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; E. B. Donnell, Judge. Suit between the Farmers' Bank & Trust First National Bank of corporation, and others. in, the former appeal. (90 So.) West Palm Beach, a PER CURIAM. This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment aforesaid M. D. Carmichael, of West Palm Beach, for and briefs and argument of counsel for the reappellants. E. J. L'Engle, of Jacksonville, and H. L. Bussey and S. C. Kearley, both of West Palm Beach, for appellees. PER CURIAM. This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the decree aforesaid, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said decree. It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the said decree of the circuit court be and the same is hereby affirmed. All concur. BOYER v. DE SOTO HOLDING CO. (Supreme Court of Florida. Jan. 16, 1922. Rehearing Denied Jan. 24, 1922.) Error to Circuit Court, Highlands County; George W. Whitehurst, Judge. Action between James Boyer and the De Soto Holding Company, a corporation. From a judgment therein, the former brings error. Af firmed. spective parties, and the record having been BUNCH v. HIGH SPRINGS BANK. (Supreme Court of Florida. Jan. 16, 1922.) Error to Circuit Court, Columbia County; M. F. Horne, Judge. Action between James H. Bunch and the High Springs Bank, a corporation. From a judgment therein, the former brings error. Affirmed. See, also, 89 South. 121. James H. Bunch, of Jacksonville, for plaintiff in error. F. Y. Smith, of Alachua, for defendant in error. PER CURIAM. This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment aforesaid and briefs and argument of counsel for the reLeitner & Leitner, of Arcadia, for plaintiff spective parties, and the record having been Treadwell & Treadwell, of Arcadia, for de-advised of its judgment to be given in the premseen and inspected, and the court being now fendant in error. error. in PER CURIAM. This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment aforesaid and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said judgment. It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. All concur. ises, it seems to the court that there is no ersidered, ordered, and adjudged by the court ror in the said judgment. It is therefore conthat the said judgment of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. All concur. HALL v. CHEYNEY. (Supreme Court of Florida. Jan. 16, 1922.) Appeal from Circuit Court, Manatee County; M. A. McMullen, Judge. Action between Mamie Hall, executrix of Richard S. Hall and A. C. Williams, and John WATKINS, Clerk of Circuit Court, v. STATE K. Cheyney. From an order therein the for ex rel. LESLEY. (Supreme Court of Florida. Jan. 16, 1922.) Error to Circuit Court, Hillsborough County; F. M. Robles, Judge. Proceeding by the State, on the relation of L. G. Lesley, against W. Roger Watkins, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County. Judgment for relator, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. mer appeal. Affirmed. H. M. Hampton, of Ocala, and Treadwell & PER CURIAM. This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the order aforesaid, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the court being now Whitaker, Himes & Whitaker and James F. advised of its judgment to be given in the premGlen, all of Tampa, for plaintiff in error. John P. Wall and Mabry, Reaves & Carlton, all of Tampa, for defendant in error. ises, it seems to the court that there is no error in the said order. It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court |