Moody v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1875
• Citation: 54 Ga. 660
• Parties: Waldeman Moody, plaintiff in error. v. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

54 Ga. 660

Waldeman Moody, plaintiff in error. v. The State of Georgia, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, July Term, 1875.)

[COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED]

Criminal law. Continuance. Indictment. Before Judge Bartlett. Greene Superior Court. March Term, 1875.

Moody was placed on trial for the offense of assault with intent to murder, alleged to have been committed upon the person of one Hark Mathews, by shooting him. When the case was called for trial, a motion was submitted by the defendant for a continuance, which was overruled. This branch of the case is fully reported in the first three head-notes.

The defendant pleaded not guilty. The evidence for the state made, in brief, the following case:

Mathews had been in the employment of defendant as a farm laborer. The latter was desirous of securing his services for the year 1875, but failing to agree on terms, notified him (Mathews) that he wanted his house by Friday morning, December 24th, 1874. On Thursday morning Mathews had a wagon in front of the door of his house, and was engaged in placing thereon such personalty as he owned, when defendant came up and said, "I suppose, Hark, you are going to move?" To which Mathews responded, "Yes, sir." Defendant then said, "I offered you as good an offer as anybody else, if you won't take that you shan't do anybody else any good." Mathews was then going out of the cabin with a box; he put the box down, and took the "hind gate" off the wagon. As he went back to take up the box, defendant shot him in the shoulder. Defendant was standing in the cabin door. He told Mathews that if he did not take *his things out of the wagon, he would blow his d—d brains out. Mathews took out what few things he could, but as he had only the use of one hand, his wife had to take out such as were heavy. The defendant shot him from behind with a pistol. There was no provocation for the act beyond the fact of his leaving the service of defendant. After the shooting, the latter told Mathews to drive the wagon away and never to put his foot on the place again.

The case made by the state rested upon the evidence of Mathews, his wife, and of the surgeon who was called in to see him when shot.

The defendant sought by five witnesses to impeach the testimony of Mathews, but the attempt was weak.

The statement of the defendant varied from that of Mathews only in the following particulars: He said that he carried a pistol with him because he was informed that he was a violent man; that he was not standing in the door of the cabin when he fired; but on the ground; that he objected to the removalby Mathews of his personalty until he had settled a provision account, for which he (defendant) had become responsible; that he stepped in front of the cabin door and stated to him (Mathews) that he should not carry out any more of his "plunder" until he had settled the account referred to; that he immediately saw that Mathews was...