In the Circuit Court Alachua County 5th Judicial
                         Circuit of Florida = In Chancery
Callie Maud Tillis    }
         vs           } Bill for Divorce
Ferney Braxton Tillis }
                  This cause coming on to be heard B.A. Thrasher Solicitor
appearing for Complainant and no one appearing for defendant, and it appearing
to the Court from the bill of complaint the decree pro confesso and the testimony
taken before the Master that the allegations of complainant are substantiated
and proven and that the defendant in a habitual intemperate, and it
further appearing from the Bill of Complaint and the testimony that defendant
is possessed of an ungovernable temper and keeps complainant in a
continual state of anxiety and fear for her personal safety and that defendant
indulges in profane and abusive language such that no refined or decent ears should
hear. It is therefore ordered considered adjudged and decreed by the Court that
the prayer of the Complainant be granted and that the bonds of Matrimony
heretofore existing between the said Callie Mand Tillis and Ferney Braxton Tillis
be and the same is hereby dissolved and that the said parties and each of
of them are as freed and discharged from the obligations thereof
 Done and Ordered this 8th day of January AD 1898 at Ocala Fla
                                 W.A. Hocker
                                      Judge
Filed 18th March 1898 Recorded 18th March 1898
                                    H.C. Denton Clerk
                                    pr S.H. Weinges DC

                    In Circuit Court Alachua County Florida
Ex Parte   Henry Alexander Livingston
                       Habeas Corpus
 The petitioner is now confined in the State Prison under a sentence of
the criminal Court of Duval County imposed at the Feby Term 1898 for
grand larceny
           The petitioner's attorney moves to discharge the petitioner on
the ground that the return shows that the petitioner is restrained of
his liberty under a sentence which is void " ab initio the sentence imposed is
in substance five years imprisonment in the State Prison and $1000 00/100
fine, and in default of payment of the fine a further sentence of five years
in State Prison. The law Applicable to the case is Chapter 4395 Laws of 1895
This statute Authorizes a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding five years
in the State Prison, or in the County Jail not exceeding twelve months
or by fine not exceeding $1000 00/100. These punishments are in the Alternative
not cumulative, Section 3 of the Act of 1895, repeals all laws in conflict with
this act, so that all the older provisions of the statute law inconsistent
with this act are repealed, I am of opinion that the sentence of the
Court is erroneous in imposing cumulative punishments but as the Court
had authority to sentence the petitioner to imprisonment in the Penitentiary
for five years and did do so, & thereby exhausted its authority and the sentence is