Shields v. State
| Decision Date | 04 April 1892 |
| Citation | 16 S.E. 66,89 Ga. 549 |
| Parties | SHIELDS . v. STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Obscene and Vulgar Language in Presence of a Female—What Constitutes.
The language, "You are a God damn low-down son of a bitch, " though profane, coarse, opprobrious, and abusive, is not obscene and vulgar, inasmuch as the word "bitch, " applied to a woman, does not, in its ordinary sense, import prostitution. It follows that the utterance of these words is not an offense against that part of section 4372 of the Code which declares it a misdemeanor to use obscene and vulgar language in the presence of a female.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Catoosa county; I. W. Milner, Judge.
W. N. Shields was convicted of using obscene and vulgar language in the presence of a female. A motion in arrest of judgment was overruled, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Backett & Mann, for plaintiff in error.
A. W. Fite, Sol. Gen., for the State.
The offense laid in the indictment is alleged to have been committed on the 25th day of December, 1889. The statute applicable to it is section 4372 of the Code, which reads as follows: "Any person who shall, without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence, opprobrious words or abusive language tending to cause a breach of the peace, or who shall, in like manner, use obscene and vulgar language in the presence of a female, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished as prescribed in section 4310 of this Code: provided, that no court in this state shall have jurisdiction to inquire into the offenses set forth in this section, except upon presentment made, or indictment found, by the grand jury of the county in which the offense has been committed." There were two counts in the indictment, —the first charging the use of the words, "You are a God damn low-down son of a bitch, " to, of, and in the presence of Ed Etheridge; the second charging the use of the same words to and of Etheridge, in the presence of Mrs. M. E. Dedman. The jury found the accused guilty on the second count, and a motion made by him in arrest of judgment was overruled by the court. The indictment was sufficient to uphold a conviction on the first count, but not on the second. At the time these words were spoken, it was not an offense, apart from any tendency to produce a breach of the peace, to uso profane language in the presence of a female, though it was afterwards made so by the act of December 29,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Interstate Co. v. Garnett
... ... what common law is ... Supreme ... court has authority to declare for itself what common law of ... state is ... 2 ... COMMON LAW. When rule of common law ceases to be reasonable, ... it is no longer the common law ... [154 ... 50 Ind. 336, 338; Robertson ... v. Edelstein, 104 Wis. 440, 80 N.W. 724; Jacobs v ... Carter, 92 N.W. 397, 398, 87 Minn. 448; Shields v ... State, 17 S.E. 66, 67, 89 Ga. 549; K v. H , 20 ... Wis. 239, 242, 91 Am. Dec. 397; Schurick v. Kollman, ... 50 Ind. 336, 338; Craig ... ...
-
Spence v. Flynt
... ... Page 773 ... summary judgment on constitutional issues can be superseded by a provision of the state constitution ... "2. Whether the statements about plaintiff Gerry Spence were constitutionally protected statements of opinion ... "3. Whether ... an ninety-nine year old case, "[t]he language, 'You are a God damn lowdown son of a bitch,' * * * is not 'obscene and vulgar [language].' " Shields v. State, 89 Ga. 549, 16 S.E. 66 (1892) ... These three considerations all point emphatically toward a finding that Hustler's ... ...
-
Knowles v. United States
...at common law. Language, of course, may be coarse, profane, and opprobrious without coming within the scope of that term. Shields v. State, 89 Ga. 549, 16 S.E. 66; Swearingen v. United States, 161 U.S. 446, Sup.Ct. 562, 40 L.Ed. 765. The true test to determine whether a writing comes within......
-
Wilson v. State
...so as to enable the defendant to prepare his defense. The words charged were within themselves opprobrious and abusive (Shields v. State, 89 Ga. 549, 16 S.E. 66), and it was not necessary to allege in what manner they were opprobrious and abusive. It is for the jury to determine, under the ......