Lowry v. State
| Decision Date | 22 March 1897 |
| Citation | 28 S.E. 419,100 Ga. 574 |
| Parties | LOWRY v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Homicide —Evidence —Instructions —Assignment Of Error.
There was no such assignment of error upon the rulings of the court in admitting evidence as would authorize this court to consider the questions relating thereto which were argued here. There was no error in excluding evidence. The charge of the court was a full and fair instruction to the jury. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and the discretion of the trial judge in refusing a new trial will not be controlled.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Glynn county; J. L. Sweat, Judge.
M. Lowry was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.
G. B. Mabry, for plaintiff in error.
Toomer & Reynolds, John W. Bennett, Sol. Gen., and J. M. Terrell, Atty. Gen., for the State.
ATKINSON, J. Lowry, the accused, was Indicted for the offense of the murder of one Patrick Burns. His trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, and, his motion for new trial having been overruled, he excepted.
A number of exceptions were taken to the admission of evidence by the court, but there was no such assignment of error upon any of the rulings complained of as authorizes this court to consider the exceptions taken. Upon the trial the accused offered to prove by a witness that one Stewart had made a statement to him to the effect that he (Stewart) had a double-barrel gun; but it does not appear how and in what manner that testimony was relevant to the issue being tried. The mere fact that Burns appeared to have been shot with a gun out of which buckshot had been discharged would not of itself authorize the admission of statements by third persons that he owned such a gun. Indeed, statements by such a third person to the effect that he, and not Lowry, was the actual perpetrator of the offense, would not have been admissible in favor of Lowry upon his trial. See Lyon v. State, 22 Ga. 399; Daniel v. State, 65 Ga. 199; Kelly v. State, 82 Ga. 441-144, 9 S. E. 171; Smith v. State, 9 Ala. 990. So that in no view of the case were such declarations admissible, and the court did not err in excluding evidence. The charge of the court which comes to us certified in the record was a full and fair instruction to the jury upon the various phases of the case as they were developed at the trial. The evidence amply sustains the verdict of the jury.
It appears that the accused and the deceased were engaged in the business of trapping and fishing, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State
...(1912); Robison v. State, 114 Ga. 445, 40 S.E. 253 (1901). This has been the law in Georgia for over one hundred years. Lowry v. State, 100 Ga. 574, 28 S.E. 419 (1897); Delk v. State, 99 Ga. 667(3), 26 S.E. 752 (1896); Briscoe v. State, 95 Ga. 496, 20 S.E. 211 (1894); Woolfolk v. State, 85 ......
- Brown v. State
-
Bryant v. State
...was not accused of having any connection with the crime. Moughon v. State, 57 Ga. 102(3); Daniel v. State, 65 Ga. 199(1); Lowry v. State, 100 Ga. 574, 28 S.E. 419; v. State, 138 Ga. 265(2), 75 S.E. 139; West v. State, 155 Ga. 482(1), 117 S.E. 380; Johnson v. State, 188 Ga. 662(1), 4 S.E.2d ......
-
Bryant v. State
...was not accused of having any connection with the crime. Moughon v. State, 57 Ga. 102(3); Daniel v. State, 65 Ga. 199(1); Lowry v. State, 100 Ga. 574, 28 S.E. 419; Beach v. State, 138 Ga. 265(2), 75 S.E. 139; West v. State, 155 Ga. 482(1), 117 S.E. 380; Johnson v. State, 188 Ga. 662(1), 4 S......