Cross v. Carter

• Decision Date: 22 March 1897
• Citation: 28 S.E. 390,100 Ga. 632
• Parties: CROSS v. CARTER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

28 S.E. 390

100 Ga. 632

CROSS v. CARTER.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 22, 1897

Syllabus by the Court.

There was, as against the losing party, no error in charging, in refusing to charge, or in rejecting evidence. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and is not excessive; and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Error from city court of Macon; J. P. Ross, Judge.

Action by Henry Carter against Green Cross in trespass vi et armis. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Eric Gambrell, for plaintiff in error.

M. G Bayne, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS C.J.

Carter sued Cross in an action for trespass vi et armis, the substance of his declaration being that, without any provocation on his part, Cross had cut, wounded, and stabbed him with a knife on each of his arms, greatly injuring him. Defendant denied the allegations in the petition, and alleged that, if he wounded the plaintiff at all, it was only upon the greatest provocation given by plaintiff, plaintiff having made a deadly and unprovoked assault upon him, from which he escaped only by wounding said plaintiff. There was a verdict for plaintiff for $100. Defendant moved for a new trial, and his motion being overruled, excepted.

It appears from the evidence that Cross was manager of a plantation, and that one of the employés on the farm had procured Carter to come with his wagon and team, and move his effects to another plantation. While they were in the act of moving the wagon, Cross arrived, and, according to the plaintiff's testimony, without any provocation, and without his saying a word to Cross, Cross stabbed him on one of his arms near the wrist, inflicting a serious wound. Cross then went into the house, returned, and, without any further provocation, stabbed plaintiff upon the other arm. Both wounds were serious, and from them he suffered severe pain on account of having caught cold in them. One of the wounds, he claims, permanently injured his arm. The testimony of Cross is to the effect that Carter, the plaintiff, made a threat and a motion as if he intended to assault him, one of the witnesses testifying that Carter had an open knife in his pocket. This is the substance of the testimony.

Various exceptions were taken in the motion for a new trial, a number of them being to the charge of the court and the refusals to give in charge certain requests therein set out. The court was requested to charge that "the defendant has the right to prove, and the jury should consider, any acts of the plaintiff which tended to arouse the passions of the defendant, or which tended to cause a breach of the peace and, if you should find that the plaintiff aggravated or provoked the difficulty, and so brought the injury on himself, then the defendant is not liable, and you will so find." Under the facts of the present case, this request to charge was too broad. In effect, it means that Cross would be justified in stabbing the plaintiff ...