Rumph v. State

• Decision Date: 12 October 1892
• Citation: 16 S.E. 104,91 Ga. 20
• Parties: RUMPH v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

16 S.E. 104

91 Ga. 20

RUMPH v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

October 12, 1892

Syllabus by the Court.

1. An unsigned letter in the handwriting of a person resting under a charge of larceny of a bale of cotton, addressed to one of the owners of the cotton, and sent to him by mail, is admissible in evidence against the writer on his trial for the larceny; the letter suggesting that he, the owner, had better see the person charged with the larceny, and make him pay money; that the owner can double the cotton in money instead of paying cost; and that, from all the writer has heard, the owner will lose the case. Though the letter ended abruptly, and had no signature, there is no evidence that it was not as complete as the writer wanted or intended it to be, and it embraced no offer or proposition to compromise. On the contrary, it manifested an effort to influence the owner to drop the prosecution for the sake of getting pay for his cotton, without disclosing that the person thus attempting to influence him was the individual who was accused of the theft. The letter was relevant, and that it was in the handwriting of the accused was sufficiently proved to warrant the court in admitting it in evidence as a document emanating from him.

2. The evidence as a whole warranted the verdict, and there was no error in denying a new trial.

Error from superior court, Macon county; W. H. FISH, Judge.

Henry Rumph was convicted of larceny for stealing a bale of ginned cotton. His motion for a new trial was overruled, and he brings error. Affirmed.

H. A. Mathews, W. S. Wallace, and J. W. Haygood, for plaintiffs in error.

C.

p>Page B. Hudson, Sol. Gen., by Harrison & Peeples, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed.