Floyd v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1867 |
| Citation | 36 Ga. 91 |
| Parties | ANDREW J. FLOYD, plaintiff in error. v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Note.—Warner, C. J., did not preside in this case.
Indictment for Stabbing. Motion for new trial. Decided by Judge Holt. Burke Superior Court, November Term, 1860. Floyd stood conversing with the two Messrs. Brinson. He had open in his hand such a knife as farmers carry, and was perhaps whittling or cleaning his finger nails.
Whilden approached and asked Floyd if he had been accusing him of collecting money for his (Floyd's) slave and stealing it. Floyd said he did. Immediately Whilden struck Floydwith his fist, and Floyd stabbed him, and pursuing *Whilden, who walked backward, continued stabbing him.
Whilden drew his knife; Floyd ran; Whilden caught him and stabbed him. An interval occurred while each was examining his wounds: Whilden got an axe-helve, ran after Floyd, (who retreated,) and beat him.
The Court charged the jury that, if they found against the defendant the fact of stabbing as alleged in the indictment, they must inquire whether or not the stab was inflicted in defendant's own defence; that the degree of violence which defendant might use, and the weapon he might employ, must depend upon the nature and violence of the assault. The Court read to the jury the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth sections of the fourth division of the Penal Code, relating to homicide, as the law governing the measure and extent of self-defence in this case.
The jury found the defendant guilty.
He moved for a new trial upon the grounds—
1st. That the verdict is contrary to law.
2d. That the verdict is strongly and decidedly against the weight of evidence.
3d. That the verdict is contrary to law and evidence.
4th. That the Court erred in charging the jury in manner and form aforesaid.
The Court refused the new trial, and defendant excepted.
John K. Jackson and Jones & Sturgis, for plaintiff in error.
Alpheus M. Rodgers, attorney-general, by Akerman, for the State.
The general rule in criminal law in reference to assaults made on a person, and how they may be repelled defensively, is that contained in the charge of Judge Holt to the jury, which triedthis indictment, "that whether the stabbing by plaintiff in error amounted to self-defence, depended on the *nature and violence of the assault made on him." In this case the plaintiff in error received a blow with the fist...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rader
... ... The authorities cited ... in support of the assertion of the opinion that, "if the ... intention of the assailant is only to commit a trespass or ... simple beating, it would not justify the killing," do ... not sustain the text. For instance, in Floyd v ... State, 36 Ga. 91, 91 Am. Dec. 760, the Supreme Court of ... Georgia expressly placed its decision on the ground that-- ... "It does not appear by the record that there was great ... superiority in physical strength on the part of the assailant ... over that ... ...
-
State v. Doherty
... ... 96). Fear of a slight injury is not ... sufficient, nor will a mere assault, not felonious, furnish ... an excuse for the taking of life. If the intention of the ... assailant is only to commit a trespass or simple beating, it ... will not justify his killing. Floyd v. State, 36 Ga ... 91, 91 Am.Dec. 760; State v. Benham, 23 Iowa, 155, ... 92 Am.Dec. 416. But, considering the relative age and ... strength of the parties or the ferocity of the attack, if the ... intended beating is of such a character as to endanger life ... or ... ...
-
Sharp v. State
...stated a correct principle of the criminal law. Wharton Am. Cr. Law, 4th Rev. Ed., sec. 568; 57 Ind. 80; 134 Mass. 215; 47 Am. Dec., 265; 36 Ga. 91; 1 Cr. Def., 2. The question and reply of the judge was improper. 3. Reviews the evidence and contends that it is not sufficient to support the......
-
Roberson v. State
...the charge of the court, which embodied the above principle of law, is not erroneous for any reason assigned in special ground 4. Floyd v. State, 36 Ga. 91; McEvoy v. State, 123 Ga. 506(1), 51 S.E. Accordingly, there being no merit in this special ground, and the general grounds and remaini......