Brown v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Citation | 51 Ga. 502 |
| Parties | Kit Brown, plaintiff in error. v. The State of Georgia, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Criminal law. Evidence. New trial. Newly discovered evidence. Before Judge Buchanan. Monroe Superior Court. August Term, 1873.
Kit Brown was placed on trial for the offense of murder, alleged to have been committed upon the person of one Lindsey Johnson, on June 29th. 1873. The defendant pleaded not guilty. The evidence for the state made, in substance, the followingcase:
*On the day specified in the indictment, the defendant was at the Sunday-school ground, near the Ocmulgee river, in Monroe county. He was heard to say that he did not come there to get a lesson, but to kill a negro, or to get killed. When the deceased started from the school-ground, some twenty persons surrounded him, for the purpose of preventing the defendant from killing him. The defendant went towards the crowd in which deceased was. As he approached he drew his knife. He ran into the crowd three times, with his knife in his hand, but was pushed off. Deceased asked him what he wanted. He replied, "Damn it, did I say I wanted anything?" Deceased then ran back and drew his pistol. Defendant picked up a rock, and as he did so deceased fired at him. The deceased again started home, and defendant went home. Between a quarter and a half a mile from where this difficulty occurred, defendant was seen coming back towards deceased. When he approached sufficiently near, he raised his gun and pointed it at deceased. Deceased drew his pistol and fired. Defendant ran up a little nearer, again raised his gun and pointed it at deceased, when the latter fired a second time. The defendant then ran still closer to deceased and fired, wounding him so severely as to cause his death. Defendant immediately decamped. Levi and Parker Brown were with the defendant. Levi is his brother. All had knives in their hands.
A witness for the state, by the name of Thomas Dumas, testified, substantially, as follows, over the objection of the defendant:
On Saturday evening, about three weeks before the homicide, we were all in the road playing marbles. The defendant said "you are all hallooing here now, and the first thing you know I will throw a marble down some of your damned throats." Deceased said, "you need not talk that way, Kit Brown, there are some others here besides you." The defendant ran up to deceased with his knife open and two rocks in his hand, and dared him to speak, to cut his throat from ear to ear. Deceased remained silent. After that deceased *walked off and said, "Kit Brown, taint worth while for \'you to be rearing and cursing in that way; I am not afraid of you." Whereupon the defendant ran up to him, placed his hand on his throat, and said, Deceased stepped back and said, "get away, Kit Brown, I don\'t want any fuss with you." Witness told deceased to hush. Defendant said, The defendant said, as he walked off,
The evidence for the defense tended to show that the defend-ant was the aggressor in the school-ground difficulty. That at the time the defendant was approaching deceased, when the homicide was perpetrated, a man by the name of Anthony Hammond begged him to desist; that he agreed to cease provided deceased would also stop, and as a move in that direction, lowered his gun, resting the butt on the ground; that Hammond then approached deceased and his party, saying, "peace is made here, gentlemen, " several times. That some one said, "damn the peace, " and a shot was fired, the bullet striking the ground near Hammond\'s feet. That a second shot was then fired, after which the defendant fired fit deceased. That numerous threats had been made by deceased to kill defendant, all of which had been communicated to him prior to the homicide.
The jury found the defendant guilty. He moved for a new trial upon the following grounds, to-wit:
1st. Because the court erred in admitting the evidence of Thomas Dumas, as to the difficulty some three weeks before the homicide.
2d. Because the verdict was contrary to the testimony.
3d. Because the defendant has discovered since the trial of said cause, that he can prove by one Bill Watson that on the night previous to the day on which deceased was killed, he saw him moulding bullets, which he (deceased) said he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Snyder
...to a party at the time of the trial or hearing is not newly discovered, though it was not known to his counsel until afterwards. Brown v. State, 51 Ga. 502(2); Young v. State, 56 Ga. 403(2); Beck v. State, 65 Ga. 766(2); Wright v. State, 49 Ga.App. 342, 175 S.E. 487. The matters referred to......
-
State v. Menilla
...difficult to understand Daniel v. State, 103 Ga. 202, 29 S.E. 767, and it is conceded that it appears to be in conflict with Brown v. State, 51 Ga. 502, and Starke v. State, 81 Ga. 593, 7 S.E. 807. most we can make of it is that, upon the question whether an assault was malicious, there sho......
-
State v. Menilla
...difficult to understand Daniel v. State, 103 Ga. 202, 29 S. E. 767, and it is conceded that it appears to be in conflict with Brown v. State, 51 Ga. 502, and Starke v. State, 81 Ga. 593, 7 S. E. 807. The most we can make of it is that upon the question whether an assault was malicious there......
-
Davis v. State, (No. 19675.)
...' such as previous difficulties and ancient grudges. Mitch-urn v. State, 11 Ga. 615, 628; Wilson v. State, 33 Ga. 207, 217; Brown v. State, 51 Ga. 502, 505; Henderson v. State, 120 Ga. 504, 506, 48 S. E. 167; Frank v. State, 141 Ga. 243, 80 S. E. 1016; Hill v. State, 148 Ga. 521, 97 S. E. 4......