Ford v. State
| Decision Date | 08 July 1913 |
| Docket Number | (No. 4,916.) |
| Citation | 13 Ga.App. 68,78 S.E. 782 |
| Parties | FORD. v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
There is no merit in the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2718, 2719; Dec. Dig. § 1077.*]
It cannot be affirmed that a verdict finding One guilty of a crime is, for want of evidence, contrary to law, unless no credible evidence in support of the verdict was adduced.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1253, 1263; Dec. Dig. § 562.*]
Jurors are the judges of the credibility of witnesses. They may wholly disregard testimony which is at variance with the universal experience of humankind, or which is contrary to and in conflict with the evidence of the human senses, but the uncontradicted testimony of an unimpeached witness should not be disregarded merely because the fact or transaction testified to by him would ordinarily be considered improbable.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1250; Dec. Dig. § 558.*]
The fact that a witness is also a detective, whose payment depends upon the conviction of the accused, goes to his credibility as a circumstance to be considered by the jury in passing upon the credence to be given to his testimony, but it is nevertheless within the power of the jury to believe such a witness.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1184, 1185; Dec. Dig. § 367.*]
Error from Superior Court, Worth County; Frank Park, Judge.
Joe Ford was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and brings error. Affirmed.
Payton & Nottingham, of Sylvester, for plaintiff in error.
R. C. Bell, Sol. Gen., of Cairo, for the State.
RUSSELL, J. [1] 1. A motion is made to dismiss the bill of exceptions on the ground that there is no assignment of error upon any judgment of the court, and that the defendant has not filed the affidavit in forma pauperis required by law. An inspection of the record shows that there is a proper assignment of error and exception to the judgment of the court refusing a new trial. As to the second ground of the motion it appears as a matter of fact that the defendant filed an affidavit stating that because of his poverty he was unable to pay the costs of the case, but even if this had not been done it would not have concerned the defendant in error. Questions affecting the payment of costs in the reviewing court are passed upon only when brought to the attention of the court by the clerk under the rule. It is true as insisted, that there is also an affidavit in which defendant in error alleges inability to give bond for the eventual condemnation money, but this does not affect the other affidavit in forma pauperis. There is therefore no merit in the motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, and it is overruled.
2. The defendant was convicted in the lower court of a violation of the law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors. He excepts to the judgment overruling his motion for new trial. It is insisted, in the motion for a new trial, that the testimony, taken as a whole, does not warrant the conviction of the accused. The state's witness was shown to be a loafer and a gambler, and there was evidence that he was actuated by ill will toward the accused growing out of a previous difficulty. Furthermore, the state's witness stated that he had been hired by the chief of police for the specific purpose of obtaining evidence against the accused. However, it is conceded that, the testimony of this witness, if credible, would authorize a verdict of guilty. The point is made that, under the facts appearing from the record, the jury should not have believed the witness, and for that reason the verdict was contrary to law, as being unsupported by any evidence. We have no hesitation in say ing that the proof was very weak, and yet we must hold that the trial judge did not err in overruling the fourth ground of the amended motion for new trial, nor in refusing to grant the motion upon general grounds. A verdict finding one accused of crime guilty cannot be said to be contrary to law for want of evidence unless there is no credible evidence in support of the jury's finding.
3, 4. This statement of the rule is not questioned in the argument for the plaintiff in error, but the point is made that in this case the evidence in support of the verdict is not credible. Of the credibility of testimony the jury are the exclusive judges. In the present case they had the right to believe the witness in spite of his admitted interest, and to attach no importance to the testimony as...
To continue reading
Request your trial