Fambles v. State
| Decision Date | 13 January 1896 |
| Citation | 25 S.E. 365,97 Ga. 625 |
| Parties | FAMBLES v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where, after the adjournment of the term at which a criminal trial was had, the person convicted filed a motion for a new trial, upon alleged "extraordinary grounds," although the judge certified to the correctness of recitals in the motion as to what occurred at the trial, ordered the motion and the brief of evidence to be filed, and granted a rule nisi calling upon the state's counsel to show cause why the motion should not be granted, these facts did not amount to an adjudication that the motion was in law good as an "extraordinary" motion, or estop the judge, upon investigation at the hearing, from deciding that it was not good as such a motion, or prevent dismissing it for the reason that it could not be legally entertained as such.
2. Where one accused of crime was upon his trial defended by an attorney at law appointed for this purpose by the presiding judge, it will, unless there be clear and convincing proof to the contrary, be presumed that this attorney did his duty in the premises, and properly represented his client.
3. The mere facts that such counsel also, by appointment of the court, defended another person jointly indicted and tried with the accused, it being perfectly consistent for him to represent both, and that he failed to move for a new trial or to take the case to the supreme court, would not constitute grounds upon which to base an "extraordinary motion" for a new trial after the adjournment of the term at which the verdict was rendered; it not appearing that there was anything to prevent moving for a new trial during such term, or filing a bill of exceptions to the ruling of the judge within the time prescribed by law, if the counsel appointed as above stated had seen proper to do so.
4. The facts disclosed by the record in the present case do not show that the counsel representing the accused at his trial neglected any duty imposed upon him, or that, because he failed to take steps to have the verdict of guilty reviewed he improperly "abandoned" the case; and there was no error in dismissing the alleged "extraordinary motion" for a new trial.
Error from superior court, Twiggs county; C. C. Smith, Judge.
Gus Fambles was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
John R Cooper and T. R. R. Cobb, for plaintiff in error.
Wm Eason, Sol. Gen., J. M. Terrell, Atty. Gen., and John M. Stubbs, for the State.
1. It appears from the record that William, Nobles was killed on June 21, 1895. Elizabeth Nobles, his wife, Debby Nobles, his daughter, Gus Fambles, Mary S. Fambles, and Dalton Joiner were arrested and charged with the homicide. The judge of the superior court called a special term of the court for their trial, and at this term, which was held in July, 1895, they were indicted for murder. On account of their poverty, the accused were unable to employ counsel; and the court appointed two members of the bar, Messrs. C. R. Warren and W. Custis Nottingham, to represent them as counsel. The accused were tried jointly, and Elizabeth Nobles Gus Fambles, and Mary Fambles were found guilty of murder. No motion for a new trial was made for any of the accused. At the next regular term, which was held in the following October, Elizabeth Nobles made a motion for a new trial, upon alleged "extraordinary grounds"; and, at the same term, Gus Fambles, through his counsel, Messrs. John R. Cooper and Thomas R. R. Cobb, who were employed subsequently to the trial, made a similar motion. The motion of Mrs. Nobles is dealt with in another opinion. When the motion of Gus Fambles was presented to the judge, he approved the grounds thereof as true so far as they related to what occurred upon the trial before him, ordered the motion and the brief to be filed, issued a rule nisi calling on counsel for the state to show cause why the motion should not be granted, and granted a supersedeas until the motion could be heard and disposed of. When the motion came on to be heard, counsel for the state moved to dismiss it, because the grounds of the motion did not make out such a case as would authorize the court to hear and consider the same as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial