Studstill v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1849
• Docket Number: N0. 2.
• Parties: Jonathan Studstill, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

7 Ga. 2

Jonathan Studstill, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant.

N0. 2.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

JUNE TERM, 1849.

Indictment for murder in the second degree, in Lowndes Superior Court. Tried before Judge Scarborough, December Term, 1848.

Jonathan Studstill was put upon his trial, under the following indictment:

Georgia, Lowndes County:

The Grand Jurors, &c. in the name and behalf of the citizens of Georgia, charge and accuse Manuel Studstill and Jonathan Studstill, both of the county and State aforesaid, with the offence of murder, as principals in the second degree. For that one Samuel Mattox, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the Devil, on the 7th day of September, 1843, with force and arms in the county aforesaid, in and upon one William Slaughter, in the peace of the State then and there being, feloniously, unlawfully, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, then and there did make an assault, and that he, the said Samuel Mattox, a certain riflegun of the value of twenty dollars, the property of Manuel Studstill, then and there being found, the said rifle gun being then and there charged with gunpowder and a leaden bullet, which rifle gun he, the said Samuel Mattox, in both his hands then and there had and held at, against and upon him, the said William Slaughter, then and there feloniously, unlawfully, and of his malice aforethought, did discharge and shoot off; and that he, the said Samuel Mattox, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, by force of the gunpowder aforesaid, so by him, the said Samuel Mattox as aforesaid, discharged and shot off, him, the said William Slaughter, in and upon the left side of the head of him, the said William Slaughter, then and there feloniously, unlawfully, wilfully, and of his malice aforethought, did strike and wound, giving to the said William Slaughter, then and there, with the leaden bullet aforesaid, out of the said rifle gun, so as aforesaid discharged and shot off, in and upon the said left side of the head of him, the said William Slaughter, one mortal wound of the breadth of one inch and depth of two inches, of which said mortal wound he, the said William Slaughter, on and from the said 7th day September, in the year aforesaid, until the 8th day of September, in the year aforesaid, at the house of one Moses Slaughter, in the county afoesaid, did languish, and languishing did live, on which said 8th day of September, in the year aforesaid, about the hour of nine o\'clock in the morning, he, the said William Slaughter, at the house of said Moses Slaughter, in the county aforesaid, of the mortal wound aforesaid, died.

And the Jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do say, that the said Manuel Studstill and the said Jonathan Studstill, on the said 7th day of September, in the year aforesaid, in the county and State aforesaid, then and there feloniously, wilfully, unlawfully, and of their malice aforethought, were present, aiding, helping, abetting, comforting, assisting and maintaining the said Samuel Mattox in the felony and murder aforesaid, in manner and form aforesaid, to do and commit, contrary to the laws of said State, " &c.

At the December Term, 1848, the case being called for trial, the defendants severed. The case against Manuel Studstill being called, an issue was joined upon a plea filed of autrefois acquit, a Jury impannelled and a verdict rendered in favor of the State. After the verdict, and before Manuel Studstill was tried, the State\'s attorney moved to put Jonathan Studstill on his trial, to which motion counsel for Jonathan Studstill objected, on the ground that the State had elected to try the other defendant first, by joining issue on the plea, and had no right to place this defendant on his trial until the other issue was entirely disposed of. The Court overruled the objection, and defendant excepted.

The cause having been opened and submitted to a Jury, counsel for defendant moved the Court to instruct the Jury to find a verdict of "not guilty"—

1st. Because the indictment does not charge Samuel Mattox, the principal in the first degree, as being of the county of Lowndes.

2d. Because in this indictment Samuel Mattox is no where charged directly with the offence of murder.

3d. Because it is no where charged in the indictment that Samuel Mattox and defendant committed the crime jointly.

4th. Because in the indictment the foreman of the Jury is named Thomas M. Boston, whereas the name indorsed on the indictment is Thos. M. Boston.

The Court overruled the objections, and defendant excepted.

Counsel for the State offered in evidence the original indictment, verdict and judgment against Samuel Mattox, to which defendant objected, on the ground that it was res inter alios acta, and certified copies should be produced.. The Court admitted the indictment to prove the guilt of the principal in the first degree only. To which decision counsel for defendant excepted.

The defendant then moved a continuance on account of the absence of Samuel Spencer, a practicing attorney of that Court, but living in the State of Florida, and who was at that time in Tallahassee, attending as one of the Electors of that State, by which witness he expected to impeach the testimony of one Holliday, who was subpoenaed on the part of the State. Which motion the Court overruled on the ground of a want of diligence in the defendant in procuring the testimony, and the uncertainty of Holliday's being introduced by the State. To which decision defendant excepted.

Holliday was not sworn as a witness on the trial.

The State's counsel offered to prove by John Sanderson, that Mattox said he shot the gun when William Slaughter was killed. Defendant objected. The objection was overruled and the evi-dence admitted to "fix guilt on Mattox only—the Court stating at the time, that the State must prove by other evidence defendant\'s participation in the crime." To which decision counsel for defendant excepted.

Defendant's counsel offered to prove that defendant was a man of weak mind—avowing, at the same time, he was neither idiot, lunatic nor insane—for the purpose of lessening the force of his confessions. The Court rejected the evidence and defendant excepted.

The Court charged the Jury, that "criminal negligence was an unlawful act done, or a lawful act done without due caution and circumspection—in other words, a lawful act done carelessly and negligently of human life." To which charge defendant excepted, on the ground that the Court should have gone farther,, and charged that the result of the negligent act should be a probable consequence of the act, and that if the result was beyond the range of probabilities, it reduced the crime to voluntary manslaughter, to which there can be neither accessory before the fact, nor principal in the second degree.

The Court charged the Jury, that if Mrs. Bailey had sworn to the truth, the defendant was guilty. To this charge defendant excepted.

Upon the trial, the following testimony was submitted to the Jury upon the part of the State.

Moses Slaughter, the father of deceased, sent his son into the woods on horseback; when he next saw him he was in the house wounded in the head. This was about dark. He died the next morning and was buried. In a few days thereafter he saw him disinterred, and a bullet extracted from the left side of his head by Dr. Briggs —there was no stick.in his head. The boy was about fifteen years of age. No bad feeling between deceased and prisoner. There was some bad feeling between witness and prisoner.

Samuel Slaughter, the brother of deceased, went to meet him at the ford of the creek on the day he was wounded. Fifteen minutes before he reached the spot he heard a gun fired. Found deceased lying on his hands and knees, wounded in the left side of the head, and Samuel Mattox, Jonathan Studstill and Manuel Studstill with him. Neither of them touched deceased after witness came up. Two or three days after deceased was wounded, Samuel Mattox came to Moses Slaughter\'s house and told him and witness that he shot the gun in the direction of the creek, where witness found the three with bis brother at the time he was wounded. Prisoner said the horse had thrown deceased and jumped on him and kicked him. Prisoner told witness he had better go and get a cart and carry his brother home, which witness did. When the head was washed he saw a hole in his head. Witness afterwards saw the bullet taken out of this hole, which prisoner said was made by a snag on which the horse threw him, when Mattox fired across the creek. There was no ill feeling between Mattox and deceased.

Dr. Briggs was called upon to make a post mortem examination, after the deceased was disinterred; believed he died from the wound in his head, by a bullet from a rifle gun. The brain was liquid, so that he could not tell to what distance the ball penetrated. Saw no traces of a stick in the wound. There was a stick in the coffin, which went easily into the fracture. The post mortem examination took place some time in September, 1843.

John C. Sanderson saw the deceased soon after the wound was received at the creek. When he approached, he saw a stick in the wound and moving with the pulsations of the brain. The boy was then alive. Witness took hold of it and pulled it out. Prisoner nicked up the boy's hat, which had a hole in it. When Mrs. Slaughter came up with the cart, witness gave her the stick, and prisoner told her that snag or stick had proved her son's death. The bullet was taken from the same hole witness pulled the stick out of. Prisoner told witness the next day, that he was positive that what he had told Mrs. Slaughter about the snag's causing the boy's death was true. Witness asked prisoner to go with him. but he said he had to go to Samuel Mattox's, for Manuel Studstill's gun, which he had left there.

Rachel Bailey was the wife of Samuel Mattox at the time the...