Springer v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1866 |
| Parties | James Springer, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Motion for New Trial. In Spalding Superior Court. Decided by Judge Speer. November Term, 18G5.
Springer, being found guilty of the offence of robbery, moved for a new trial, on the ground that A. D. Nunnally, Esq., one of the counsel for the State, residing in the county, and having considerable personal and professional influence, did, after the jury were empanneled, etc., take charge of, feed, and provide, during the night, for the horses of two of the jurors, to-wit, Touchstone and Moon, at their request, free of charge.
The motion was heard and decided upon the following affidavits:
Peeples and Beck, counsel for the prisoner, deposed that, while the case was under consideration, Court being about to take a recess for supper, and there being a considerable crowd in the court house congregated about the benches and fire-places, they heard some one say, at the distance of ten or fifteen feet, that Touchstone, one of the jurors, wished to speak to Mr. Nunnally, one of the States\'s counsel, (who took a leading and prominent part in the case, and addressed the jury with much warmth and earnestness) about taking care of his horse for the night; that they heard Nunnally, but made no reply, Beck only remarking to Peeples, " come along;" that they did not hear the conversation between Nunnally and Touchstone, which was going on in an ordinary tone as they walked off; that nothing was. said publicly, that they heard, about Moon also wanting his horse taken care of: nor did they know or hear of it until after the verdict was rendered.
Nunnally deposed, that after the evidence on both sides was introduced before the jury, and when the Court was about to take a recess for supper, two of the jurors, Touchstone and Moon, asked him to take care of their horses until morning; that he made mention previously* and to Mr. Peeples, counsel for defendant, that Touchstone wished to speak to him about taking charge of his horse for the night; that Peeples heard him, but said nothing in reply; that deponent did not, for a moment, suppose there was anything wrong in this; that he did take care of the horses of the two jurors for the night, at their request, and feed them free of charge; that he is confident the jurors meant no wrong by this, and he knows he himself did not think of the matter as beyond common courtesy and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fairgrieve v. City of Moberly
...on New Trials [2 Ed.] 207; State v. Andrews, 29 Conn. 104; Heffron v. Galloupe, 55 Me. 563; Irwin v. Bulla, 29 Ind. 95; 38 Ga. 216; 34 Ga. 379; 2 [N. J.] 52. BEN. T. HARDIN, for the respondent. I. This court will not reverse on account of the smallness of the damages. Pritchard v. Hewitt, 9......
-
Arkansas Central Railroad Company v. Morgan
...18 N.W. 73; 23 Neb. 171; 36 N.W. 583; 12 Kans. 539; 51 Ind. 299; 8 Oh. C. C. 244; 45 F. 542; 13 Ill.App. 653; 12 Id. 531; 2 Idaho 1022; 34 Ga. 379; 29 Cyc. 2. The court erred in refusing to give peremptory instruction requested by defendant. The evidence shows no liability whatever. 60 Ark.......
-
Shahan v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
... ... testimony of the witnesses. The purpose of a view by the ... jury, as authorized by the laws and rules of practice in this ... State, as was well said in Moore v. Macon Coca-Cola Bottling ... Co., supra, is to 'aid the jury to better understand the ... testimony of the ... entertaining the juror, the verdict will be set aside ... Walker v. Walker, 11 Ga. 203; Walker v ... Hunter, 17 Ga. 364; Springer v. State, 34 Ga ... 379; Salter v. Glenn, 42 Ga. 64; Rainy v ... State, 100 Ga. 82, 27 S.E. 709; Central of Georgia ... Ry. Co. v. Hammond, 109 ... ...
-
Shahan v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co
...the party so entertaining the juror, the verdict will be set aside. Walker v. Walker, 11 Ga. 203; Walker v. Hunter, 17 Ga. 364; Springer v. State, 34 Ga. 379; Salter v. Glenn, 42 Ga. 64; Rainy v. State, 100 Ga. 82, 27 S.E. 709; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Hammond, 109 Ga. 383, 34 S.E. 594......