Criminal Law (§ 770*)—Charge of Court.
It is no valid objection to a charge of the court that it presents the issues of the case vividly and graphically, if it is fair, is not argumentative, does not sum up the testimony, and does not express or intimate any opinion as to what has or has not been proved.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1806; Dec. Dig. § 770.*1
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Columbia County; H. C. Hammond, Judge.
Jim Brown was convicted of arson, and brings error. Affirmed.
POWELL, J. Brown was convicted of arson, and to the overruling of his motion for a new trial he brings error. In addition to the general grounds, he specifically assigns error upon the following charge of the judge to the jury: "The state contends that on the 6th day of last December, in this county, on a plantation belonging to Judge E. H. Callaway, known as the 'Mays' Place, ' there resided an old darkey by the name of Brandon Gordon, with his family; that near his dwelling house was located his stable and his barn, in which he had his mule, wagon, buggy, and some fodder and some corn; that about daybreak on Sunday morning, the 6th day of December, he was awakened by a light coming between the boards in his house; that he and his family arose, and soon afterwards his neighbors assembled around his barn and stable which was being consumed by fire, and that the flames had gone to such extent as to make it impossible for him to save his mule, wagon, corn, and forage stored therein; that his property was destroyed. The state contends that it was through a human agency that the said barn was set upon fire;-that it was not an accident; that the time of day, and the fact that some parties who went to a certain place in reference to the burning detected the odor of kerosene, establishes what is known in law as the corpus delicti—that is, that there was a crime committed. The state contends thatthe defendant had a motive and an incentive to commit this crime; that he had been-last year (1908) a tenant on Judge Callaway's place; that there was some trouble between him and his landlord as to his working and payment of amounts due by him; that he had been removed from the plantation; and that his property had been levied upon, and that the crops that he had formerly planted and tended were turned over to this old darkey Gordon, whose stable and barn were burned. The state contends that the defendant had a feeling of vindictiveness against Callaway and against this brother tenant of his who had been put in charge of his property, and to whom it is claimed he attributed his troubles with his landlord. The state contends that the defendant made threats on various occasions as to what he would do by way of having vengeance upon the prosecutor in this case, Gordon. The state contends that, in furtherance of that malicious motive and purpose on his part, he committed this act. The state contends that it has submitted testimony tending to show that the tracks leading from that burning went in the direction of the defendant's house, and led up toward his house; that those tracks were first made with a shoe of a certain character; that at a certain point in the course of the tracks the party making the tracks stopped and took his shoe off, and then walked in bare feet for a distance; that he went down to the creek and attempted to jump across the creek; but it was too far, and he went back and crossed at another point; that, after making a considerable number of tracks with bare feet, he replaced his shoes. The state contends that the tracks upon comparison with the bare foot of the defendant showed a close resemblance to his feet, if it was not identical with it. The state contends that these various circumstances, taken together with the alleged threats, show that the house was burned by human agency, and that the defendant at the bar was the man who burned it."
In order that the matter may be clearly understood, we deem it proper to complete the context from which this excerpt is taken. To the foregoing language the judge added the following: "Now, gentlemen of the jury, the defendant denies that. He contends that he had no motive for burning the house; that he had no hard feeling against his landlord, nor against this man Gordon; that, while he had no property, he was able to go into the field and make an honest living, as he had done before; that he had no ill feeling against Gordon; and that Gordon had done nothing to provoke such feeling. He contends that he went back on the place to get two guinea fowls that belonged to him, and that he took his gun and shot them; that at the time he and Gordon had a very pleasant talk, and he invited him to come to his house, and he said he would meet him at church and be as good friends as they had ever been.
The defendant claims that, with a negro named Malord, he went that night down to Richmond county, and was not near the fire, and knows nothing about It. He says he never made any threats, and that these parties misrepresented him in their testimony. He contends that, as to those tracks, he said at the time, 'You see, gentlemen, I can't make a track of that sort, ' and he asked somebody to take off his shoe, his hands being tied, and that he put his foot in the track, and it did not correspond at all. He says he is absolutely...
