Grantham v. State

• Decision Date: 01 March 1890
• Citation: 11 S.E. 140,84 Ga. 559
• Parties: GRANTHAM v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

11 S.E. 140

84 Ga. 559

GRANTHAM v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 1, 1890

Error from superior court, Schley county; FORT, Judge.

The following is the official report:

Grantham was charged with assault with intent to murder upon one Mose Porter. Upon the trial the testimony for the state tended to show that about the time charged in the indictment, November 20, 1886, in Schley county, while Porter was nailing up a gate, the defendant approached him, cursed him, and told him he was going to kill him. Defendant then had a pocket-knife in his hand, and Porter had nothing but a pine gate-latch about two feet long, three inches wide, and an inch thick. Defendant struck at Porter with the knife, not cutting him but cutting his shirt. Porter then struck defendant, and defendant then cut Porter a number of times in his side and shoulders, and Porter caught him and held him, when others came up, and they were separated. After they were separated defendant said he would kill "any damned nigger that set dogs on his hogs." Porter testified that the week before that some boys had set dogs on defendant's hogs by direction of their employer; that he had not done so, but was with the boys who had. Defendant did not ask Porter before cutting at him what he had been "dogging" his hogs for; and Porter did not tell defendant to keep them out of the field, he did not care if he did "dog" them nor did he tell defendant at the time he struck him with the latch that he (Porter) was going to kill defendant. Porter dropped the gate-latch before defendant cut him, and defendant never said a word to him about the hogs. Porter heard defendant talking to Mrs. Braisden, but did not know what he was saying, and at that time was not in the field. Some of the wounds were slight, and some right severe, one being under the arm near an artery, and some of those in the back were four or five inches long. None of the wounds were very serious; all healed with the first adhesion, except the one under the arm, which healed in three or four days. Defendant was the larger man of the two. After they were separated he did not make any further effort to hurt Porter. He had some blood on his head, just about the ear. For the defendant, H. H. Singletary testified that on the day of the difficulty defendant came to his house, he being a justice of the peace, to get a warrant for Porter. Defendant was bruised on the side of the head, and the skin seemed to be broken. Looked like it was a pretty hard lick; sufficient to knock him down. Defendant's father testified that defendant just after the difficulty, had a wound on the left side of his face, near his eye. Saw it bleeding right smartly, and he was bruised pretty badly. Mose Porter was called by the defense to lay the foundation for impeachment, and testified that at Singletary's store, on the day appointed for the trial of this case,--something about this difficulty,--he was present. He was asked if he did not tell defendant, in the presence of defendant's father, that he (witness) was to blame about this difficulty; that he struck defendant first and would pay half the costs. He answered that these men got after him to pay half the costs; "I did not tell him that." He further testified that defendant's father told him he had better settle this thing, because defendant's part was a state case. Defendant's father was reintroduced, and testified that he was at the justice's court where the trial of the difficulty was going on, and that he told Mose...