Haines v. State

• Decision Date: 25 January 1900
• Parties: HAINES v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

35 S.E. 141

109 Ga. 526

HAINES v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 25, 1900

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Even if a writing purporting to be a certified copy of the testimony of a witness given at a commitment trial be admissible in evidence, when it appears that the testimony was not taken down while the witness was on the stand, but was afterwards written out by the magistrate from memory, yet allowing such copy to be introduced against that witness on his trial in the superior court for perjury will not be cause for setting aside his conviction, when, in his statement to the jury, he admits that such copy, in substance, correctly sets forth what he swore at the commitment trial, and when the magistrate testifies to the same effect.

2. That the court, on a trial for perjury, in giving in charge section 991 of the Penal Code, instead of reading to the jury the concluding clause of that section as written, stated that "corroborating circumstances may or may not dispense with another witness," was certainly not erroneous, as against the accused. The interpolation of the words, "or may not," was favorable to him. (a) Nor was there any error in adding the words: "It must take two witnesses or other strong corroborating circumstances to establish the fact that the testimony given was false." The use of the word "strong," quoted, was in this connection more favorable to the accused than he had a right to demand.

3. There was no error in admitting testimony. The evidence though conflicting, was sufficient to warrant the verdict and, the same having been approved by the trial judge, this court will not interfere.

Error from superior court, Muscogee county; W. B. Butt, Judge.

J. T Haines was convicted of perjury, and brings error. Affirmed.

J. H. Worrill, for plaintiff in error.

S. P. Gilbert, Sol. Gen., for the State.

LEWIS J.

J. T Haines was by the grand jury of Muscogee county indicted for the offense of perjury, and at the May term, 1899, of that court, was placed upon trial under this indictment and convicted. It appears, both from the allegations in the indictment and the evidence in the record, that on the 2d day of January, 1899, a commitment trial was had, before a justice's court in Muscogee county, upon a state warrant which charged one Jarvis with the seduction of Lizzie Russell; and on that trial in the magistrate's court J. T. Haines, plaintiff in error in this case, was introduced as a witness in behalf of the accused, Jarvis, and testified, in substance, before the magistrate, after being duly sworn, that he had carnal knowledge of Lizzie Russell at Wildwood Park, in Columbus, on Christmas night, 1896. The magistrate made a memorandum of Haines' testimony during the trial, and in a short while after the trial terminated reduced his testimony to writing. Upon the trial of the perjury case in the superior court against Haines, the state introduced the magistrate, J. E. Crenshaw, who testified in reference to the commitment trial, identified the written statement he had made of Haines' testimony, and swore that it was correct. The state then offered in evidence the written statement of Haines' testimony, which was admitted, over the objection of counsel for the accused. After making proof of the testimony delivered by the accused in the magistrate's court as charged in the indictment, the state then introduced Lizzie Russell, who, in positive terms, denied the truth of this evidence; denied seeing him at all at the time and place he stated; and further denied ever having been illicitly intimate with him. She admitted having been at Wildwood Park on Christmas day of 1896, but testified that she left there before dark, in company with friends and certain persons with whom she was living. These persons to whom she referred were likewise introduced in behalf of the state, who corroborated her statement to the effect that she was in their company during her whole stay at Wildwood Park at the time mentioned, and left the place before dark, going to her home, where the evidence tended to show she remained all night. In behalf of the defendant there were a number of witnesses who swore to the lewd character of Lizzie Russell, and to certain acts of lewdness on her part. The accused, Haines, in his statement, substantially admitted what he swore to in the magistrate's court, just as detailed by the state's witnesses, and claimed in his statement that he swore the truth. Jarvis, the person who was charged with seduction, likewise testified in the perjury case in favor of Haines, his testimony tending to show lewd character of Lizzie Russell;...