
    Edward BLANCO and Henry Urso, Petitioners, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.
    No. 32126.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    Oct 21, 1964.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1965.
    Frank Ragano, Tampa, for petitioners.
    James W. Kynes, Atty. Gen., and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on petition for writ of certiorari upon the transcript of record and briefs to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida in said cause bearing date September 21st, 1962 and the record having been inspected, it is

Ordered that said petition be and the same is hereby denied.

DREW, C. J., and THOMAS, O’CON-NELL and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS and HOBSON (Ret.), JJ., dissent.

HOBSON, Justice, Ret.

(dissenting).

Petitioners contend that they were not accorded a fair'and impartial trial because of an alleged prejudicial remark made by the trial judge in the presence of the jury when he ruled upon an objection to, and a motion to strike, certain testimony of one of the State’s witnesses. An examination of the “record proper” indicates to my mind that this contention in all probability is well-founded. Consequently I would, at least, remand this case to the District Court of Appeal, 2nd District, with the request that said Court favor us with an opinion. Such procedure might result in serving the interests of justice under the guaranties of both the State and Federal Constitutions. Moreover it would not be without precedent. We adopted the procedure which I deem appropriate herein in the case of Rosenthal v. Scott, Fla., 131 So.2d 480, and more recently in Home Development Co. of St. Petersburg v. Bursani, Fla., 168 So.2d 131, opinion filed October 2nd, 1964.  