Brown v. The State
| Citation | 28 Ga. 439 |
| Parties | BROWN. vs. THE STATE. |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1859 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Indictment for Forgery and Counterfeiting. Motion for new trial. In Chatham Superior Court. Tried before Judge Fleming, at January Term, 1859.
Be it remembered, that at the January Term, 1859, of Chatham Superior Court, his Honor William B. Fleming, one of the Judges of the Superior Courts of said State, presiding, the cause of The State of Oeorgia vs. William M. Brown, then and there pending on the criminal side of said Court, being a prosecution for Forgery and Counterfeiting, came on to be heard on the 19th day of February, 1859. The parties announced themselves ready; a jury was empanelled; and the cause went to trial under plea of the General Issue.
Witnesses were introduced by the State only, and testified on the direct and cross-examination as shown by the Record, to be sent up by the clerk of said Court.
In the direct examination of the witness, Benjamin Bragg, defendant, by his counsel, objected to his giving any testimony touching the uttering of the instrument alleged to have been forged, on the ground that the third count of the Indictment, that by which it was intended to charge the prisoner with the offence of uttering a forged instrument of writing, knowing it to be such, did not charge the defendant, William M. Brown, but William M. Davis, with guilty knowledge. The Court overruled the objection, and witness testified as stated in the Record. The defendant then excepted to such decision, and now assigns the same as error.
Defendant introduced no testimony.
The cause was then argued and submitted, and the jury found the prisoner guilty on the third count of the Indictment.
Afterwards, to-wit, on the 25th day of February, 1859, and during the session of said Court at the term thereof aforesaid, the defendant, by his counsel, moved the granting of a rule nisi, calling upon the Solicitor General, Julian Hartridge, Esqr., to show cause, instanter, or upon a day prior to the adjournment of the aforesaid term of Court, why the verdict of the jury, as aforesaid, should not be set aside, and a new trial granted in said cause, on the following grounds, to-wit:
1. Because the Court erred in admitting evidence going to show the defendant had uttered a forged paper, as theindictment did not allege that he knew the same to be a forgery.
2. Because the juror, Allen Russell, is a cousin of the prosecutor, Henry Davis, a fact not known to the defendant or his counsel till after the verdict was rendered, and was not, therefore, an impartial juror as between the State and the accused.
3. Because the verdict was without evidence.
4. Because the verdict was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke v. McDonald
... ... 131, 8 S.Ct. 22; Ochs ... v. People, 124 Ill. 399, 16 N.E. 662; Theisen v ... Johns, 72 Mich. 285, 40 N.W. 727; Thurman v ... State, 27 Neb. 628, 43 N.W. 404; People v ... Price, 53 Hun, 185, 6 N.Y.S. 833. See State v ... Brecht, 41 Minn. 50, 42. N. W. 602; Balding v ... te, 23 Tex. App. 172, 4 S.W. 579; People v. Brown ... (Cal.), 13 P. 222; Hopt v. People, 120 U.S ... 430, 7 S.Ct. 614; Hencke v. Railway Co., 769 Wis ... 401, 34 N.W. 243.) The fact that a ... ...
-
Crawley v. State
...the prosecutor, or the accused, or the deceased, as to disqualify him by law from serving on the jury." Penal Code 1010, § 999. In Brown v. State, 28 Ga. 439 (original motion for new trial), it appeared that one of the jurors was a cousin of the prosecutor, but the degree of the relationshi......
-
Smith v. State
...be trammeled in their defense by the presence of his kinsman upon the jury. There can be no doubt that he was an improper juror. Brown v. State, 28 Ga. 439; Rust t. Shackleford, 47 Ga. 538." If the juror Webb would be held disqualified in a civil case because his presence on the jury might ......
-
Smith v. State
...be trammeled in their defense by the presence of his kinsman upon the jury. There can be no doubt that he was an improper juror. Brown v. State, 28 Ga. 439; Rust Shackleford, 47 Ga. 538." If the juror Webb would be held disqualified in a civil case because his presence on the jury might tra......