Mathis v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1855
• Docket Number: No. 38.,38.
• Citation: 18 Ga. 343
• Parties: James Mathis, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

18 Ga. 343

James Mathis, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

No. 38.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JULY TERM, 1855.

Assault, &c. in Baker Superior Court. Tried before Judge Perkins, May Term, 1855.

Mathis was indicted, tried, and convicted of an assault with intent to commit a rape upon a little girl under the age of consent.

A motion was made for a new trial upon several grounds, to only two of which was the attention of the Supreme Court called—

1st. That the Jury, after retiring, were corruptly tampered with, by James J. Keaton, who offered a bribe of $500, andinduced them, by threats, and other promises and means, to return a verdict of guilty.

2d. That one of the Jury, viz: Wm. Everett, was the father-in-law of the prosecutor, (who was the father of the little girl,) of which fact, defendant's counsel were ignorant.

In support of the first ground, were produced the affidavits of William Jordan, John Knight, Lewis F. Lanier and Thomas Hatcher, to the effect that Keaton went under the window of the Jury-room and told the Jury to " find him guilty or you will swear to a lie, " and then offered to bet $500 to $100, that he would be convicted—that it was near enough for the Jury to hear what was said, and that the Jury immediately came down.

The State's Counsel, in rebuttal, offerred the affidavit of Wm. R. Swearingen and three others, that Keaton was drunk at the time, and was at some distance from the Jury-room; and they did not believe the Jury heard what he said; and that he did not say, " find him guilty, " &c. as far as they heard; and that at the time this thing occurred, Thomas Hatcher and Lewis F. Lanier, they know, were imprisoned in jail, and they believe that John Knight was there also.

Also, the affidavite of Keaton, denying that he spoke to the Jury or in their hearing, as he believed, and denying the use of the words alleged by Hatcher and others. Also, the affidavit of five of the Jurors, purging the Jury from all knowledge of this matter. To these last affidavits being received, Counsel for Mathis objected.

The Court refused to grant a new trial, and this is the error assigned.

Morgan, for plaintiff in error.

Sol. Gen. Lyon, for the State.

By the Court.—Starnes, J. delivering the opinion.

The objection taken to the Juror, Everett, seems to havebeen abandoned by the Counsel for the plaintiff in error, (very properly so, we think,) and therefore, we shall not remark upon it.

The first of the two grounds which were pressed upon the attention of the Court, was that a new trial should have been granted, because, as was alleged by the plaintiff in error, the Jury...