Dutton v. State
| Decision Date | 10 July 1893 |
| Citation | 18 S.E. 545,92 Ga. 14 |
| Parties | DUTTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. It was too late to file a plea of misnomer as to the Christian name by which the accused was indicted, the plea not being offered upon arraignment of the accused, nor until after a plea of not guilty, and a trial on the same, up to the close of the evidence introduced by the state.
2. Several grounds of the motion for a new trial complaining that evidence was admitted over objection, but not stating what the objection was, these grounds of the motion are not sufficiently definite to be considered.
3. Although the evidence to connect the accused with the offense was wholly circumstantial, and in some degree conflicting there was enough in support of the verdict to render it proper for the supreme court to acquiesce in the finding after its approval by the presiding judge, his approval being signified by his refusal to grant a new trial.
Error from superior court, Bartow county; T. W. Milner, Judge.
Will Dutton was convicted of murder, and, his motion for a new trial having been overruled, he brings error. Affirmed.
M. R Stansell, for plaintiff in error.
A. W Fite, Sol. Gen., and J. M. Terrell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
1. The accused was indicated under the name of Will Dutton. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty. Upon this plea the trial proceeded until the state had submitted its evidence and closed, when the accused moved to file a special plea in abatement, setting up that his name was not Will, but John, Dutton. The court refused to allow this plea at that stage of the trial. Any one who seriously doubts the correctness of this ruling may readily solve his doubts by studying law.
2. Whether the court erred in admitting evidence over the objection made to its admission is so dependent upon the objection made that, unless the objection, be disclosed to this court as it was to the trial court, it is impossible for this court to review the ruling intelligently. For this reason, the practice has been, and still is, to decline attempting any review in such instances. No good reason for departing from the practice in this particular case occurs to us, or has been suggested. All the complaints made in the motion for a new trial as to the admission of evidence are disposed of by these observations.
3. The fact of murder--murder most wicked and atrocious--was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coates v. Mulji Motor Inn, Inc., 70948
...here: "Any one who seriously doubts the correctness of this ruling may readily solve his doubts by studying law." Dutton v. State, 92 Ga. 14, 15, 18 S.E. 545 (1893). I believe that the trial court properly granted judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict. The majority opinion ......
- Latourette v. State
-
State v. Williams.
...and 1407, Code 1915) are silent as to what the motion must contain in order to constitute a proper assignment of error. In Dutton v. State, 92 Ga. 14, 18 S. E. 545, the second paragraph of the syllabus reads as follows: “Several grounds of the motion for a new trial complaining that evidenc......
-
State v. Williams
...and 1407, Code 1915) are silent as to what the motion must contain in order to constitute a proper assignment of error. In Dutton v. State, 92 Ga. 14, 18 S.E. 545, the paragraph of the syllabus reads as follows: "Several grounds of the motion for a new trial complaining that evidence was ad......