Harris v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1877 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | James W. Harris, plaintiff in error. v. The State of Georgia, defendant in error. |
Criminal Law. Dueling. Indictment. Before Judge Tompkins. Richmond Superior Court. October Term, 1876.
At the April term, 1876, of Richmond superior court, Harris was indicted for consenting to be a second in a duel "on the 16th day of December, 1876." Before pleading to the indictment, defendant demurred thereto on two grounds: first, that there was no such offense known to the laws of Georgia as the one charged; second, that the time laid in said indictment was subsequent to the finding thereof.
The demurrer was overruled, and this is the error brought up for review.
J. Ganahl, for plaintiff in error.
Salem Dutcher, solicitor general, for the state.
Two questions are made in the record in this case: first, is the crime of consenting to act as second in a duel complete, if the consent be given in this state but the duel is fought in another state? and second, is the indictment good when it chargesthat the offense was committed on a day after the finding of the true bill by the grand jury, when *the exception is taken by special demurrer before plea and trial?
1. The first point depends upon the construction of section 4517 of our Code. That section reads as follows: "If any person shall knowingly and willfully, carry and deliver, any written or printed challenge, or verbally deliver any message or challenge to another to fight with sword, pistol or other deadly weapon, or shall consent to be a second in any such duel or combat, such person so offending, " etc., etc. The gravamen of the offense is the act of consenting to be a second in a duel to be fought with sword or pistol or other deadly weapon. The word "such" before duel, evidently refers to a duel to be fought with such weapons as sword, pistol or other deadly weapon, and the meaning of the section is to prohibit the carrying of a challenge or consenting to act as second in a duel in this state, whether fought or to be fought here or in another state. The very exhaustive brief of the solicitor general fortifies this construction, which arises, we think, upon the very face of the statute. The reference to the act of 1816—Lamar\'s Digest, 593— where the offense originated, transferred thence to the Penal Code of 1833, and thence to our present Code, is conclusive on the question. That act shows that it was the design to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 33089
...v. State, 2 Ga.App. 392, 58 S.E. 672; Grimes v. State, 32 Ga.App. 541, 123 S.E. 918; Adkins v. State, 103 Ga. 5, 29 S.E. 432; Harris v. State, 58 Ga. 332, 333(2); or where no date is alleged. Phillips v. State, 86 Ga. 427, 12 S.E. 650; Braddy v. State, 102 Ga. 568, 27 S.E. 670; Draper v. St......
-
State v. Eubanks
...235 Ga. 800, 801-802, 221 S.E.2d 576 (1976). The Court of Appeals in reversing the conviction was persuaded by the language of Harris v. State, 58 Ga. 332 (1876); Kyler v. State, 94 Ga.App. 321, 94 S.E.2d 429 (1956) and Hamby v. State, 76 Ga.App. 549, 46 S.E.2d 615 (1948), all of which reci......
-
Minnix v. State, 63192
...on the date alleged therein did not authorize the grant of a motion for a directed verdict of acquital. See generally Harris v. State, 58 Ga. 332, 333 (2) (1877). The evidence supports the verdict. Hunt v. State, 101 Ga.App. 126, 112 S.E.2d 817 (1960); Lancette v. State, 151 Ga.App. 740(1),......
-
Lyles v. State, 20465
...to a timely interposed special demurrer pointing out such defect. For some of the cases so holding, see Cook v. State, 11 Ga. 53; Harris v. State, 58 Ga. 332; Bailey v. State, 65 Ga. 410; Thomas v. State, 71 Ga. 44; Phillips v. State, 86 Ga. 427, 12 S.E. 650; Braddy v. State, 102 Ga. 568, 2......