Crawford v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1873
• Parties: THOMAS CRAWFORD, plaintiff in error. v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

50 Ga. 249

THOMAS CRAWFORD, plaintiff in error. v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, July Term, 1873.)

*New trial. Bill of exceptions. Judgment. Before Judge Hopkins. Fulton Superior Court. October Term, 1872.

Thomas Crawford was placed upon trial for the offense of burglary in the night time, and convicted. He moved for a new trial because the verdict was contrary to evidence and to law. The motion was overruled, and he filed his bill of exceptions. Subsequent to this he presented to the Superior Court a petition for a rehearing of the motion for a new trial, upon the ground of evidence newly discovered since the order was passed overruling said motion. The petition was supported by the affidavits of the witnesses. The Court directed that the affidavits embracing the newly discovered evidence be made a part of the record in the case, and transmitted to the Supreme Court.

It appeared from the record that the defendant had been convicted at a previous term of the Court, and a new trial had been awarded him. The evidence upon the second trial, being voluminous, is omitted as unnecessary to an understanding of the opinion.

Error is assigned upon the refusal of a new trial.

Thrasher & Thrasher, for plaintiff in error.

John T. Glenn, Solicitor General, for the State.

McCAY, Judge.

1. It cannot be denied that the verdict in this case is not supported by evidence of much weight True, the witness does testify that he did, in fact, on the night in question, recognize the prisoner as the person he found under the bed, and who assaulted and beat him, and in all probability stole the missing articles. But his statements made that very night to the policeman, and to the other persons to whom he told the story, as well as his statements made next day to Lynch, and his extraordinary neglect to inform the police that night or nextday who the burglar was, do certainly throw strong *doubt upon what he says. Still, it is for the jury to weigh the evidence, and whilst, as a juryman, I should not convict a man on any such evidence, yet, as two juries have in fact done it, and the Judge has refused to interfere, we donot feel authorized to do so. The jury is the tribunal provided by law to pass upon the facts, and especially to consider the credibility of witnesses, and if they believe one man instead of three, or credit a story of a witness that does not appear to us probable, it may be that there was something in the...