Salter v. State, (No. 5380.)

• Citation: 135 S.E. 408,163 Ga. 80
• Decision Date: 18 October 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 5380.)
• Parties: SALTER v. STATE.
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

163 Ga. 80

135 S.E. 408

SALTER

v.STATE.

(No. 5380.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct 18, 1926.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Decatur County; W. V. Custer, Judge.

B. C. Salter was convicted of rape, and he brings error. Affirmed.

J. J. Hill, of Pelham, and Drake & Kirbo and A. B. Conger, all of Bainbridge, for plaintiff in error.

B. C. Gardner, Sol. Gen., of Camilla, P. D. Rich, of Bainbridge, Geo. M. Napier, Atty. Gen., and T. R. Gress, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

GILBERT, J. B. C. Salter was indicted for the offense of rape. The indictment charges that he committed the offense upon a named female under the age of 14 years. The defendant was found guilty, with a recommendation to the mercy of the court, and his punishment was fixed at not less than 8 nor more than 20 years in the penitentiary. He filed a motion for new trial which was afterwards amended. The court overruled the motion and the defendant excepted.

1. One ground of the motion for new trial complains that the court erred in overruling a motion to continue the case. The motion was based upon the absence of three witnesses, two of whom it is alleged were residents of the county of Decatur, but were "temporarily absent in Florida." The other witness was also a resident of said county and was temporarily absent in Atlanta. We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the motion to continue.

2. The grounds of the motion complaining that the court erred in allowing the solicitor general to propound leading questions to the injured female, and that the court erred in allowing certain designated questions propounded to the witness Buckner, and his answers to the same, with reference to the complaint to him made by the injured female, do not show reversible error.

3. One ground of the motion for new trial assigns error upon the refusal of the court to allow the injured female to testify on cross-examination that, when she called on Dr. Clark for professional advice with respect to her condition, the doctor told and advised her that she had venereal trouble (gonorrhea), and that he doctored her and treated her for that disease; "the court being apprised at the time that the witness would answer to such fact, if she were permitted to testify, " does not show error, because it is not therein shown whether the professional advice and treatment were given before the alleged commission of the offense or thereafter.

4. Another ground of the motion complains that the court permitted a named witness to testify that he had noticed the injured female "passing and going into the store of Salter Furniture Company on one or two occasions, and he observed her sitting out one afternoon in the park with her sister when defendant spoke to her, " and, after so testifying, that the court allowed the witness to testify that the conduct of the parties aroused his suspicion, and to state that his reason for the same was that "he was showing too much respect some way to the child; that is the way it attracted my attention, she being so small." This ground of the motion does not show error.

5. Another ground of the motion complains that the court erred in the...