Syllabus by the Court.
1.
Where it appears that two or more persons, without a warrant
arrested another, believing, or pretending to believe, that
he was a fugitive from justice, and at the same time took
possession of his coat, hanging near by, in the pocket of
which was a bag containing a sum of money; that after putting
handcuffs on him they proceeded to convey him to an adjoining
county, carrying his coat along with them, and having
ascertained, while on the way, that it contained money
counted it, and returned it to the pocket, saying that they
did not want it, but wanted him; that upon his promise not to
escape, and with a threat to kill him if he attempted it
they took off the handcuffs, after which the party proceeded
to the home of one of the captors, in the latter county
where the money was treated as still the money of the
captive, who was consulted by them as the owner, and whose
leave to deposit the coat, with the money in it, in a certain
room, for safe-keeping, was asked and granted; and that
afterwards, during the same day, while he was still in their
power and custody, and the money was still in this place of
deposit, they, by exciting and operating on his fears, using
not only threats of carrying him to prison unless he would
let them have $50 of the money, but also saying that if
another crowd, who they pretended were in search of him, got
hold of him, "there would be no getting
away,"--thus hinting, perhaps, at mob violence,--induced
him to consent that they might take that sum, and thereupon
the room in which the coat was deposited was opened, the
money taken out, and, in his presence, $50 of it counted and
kept by the captors, the rest of it, with the coat, being
carried away by him, and he on these conditions being
suffered to depart,-- held, that the offense of
robbery by intimidation was committed, and that the venue of
the offense was the county in which the captors finally
reduced the $50 to their exclusive possession, and not the
county in which they made the arrest and seized the coat.
2. A
ground in a motion for new trial which complains of the
admission of evidence, without setting out the evidence in
terms, but designating it simply as the testimony of a
certain named witness, stating "what his feelings,
surprises, and suspicions were when he met the
prosecutor," and relating "the conversation had
with him," is too vague and indefinite to be considered
by a reviewing court.
3.
Newly-discovered evidence, which is merely cumulative, or
which tends to impeach a witness, is not cause for a new
trial. There was no error in refusing a new trial.
Error
from superior court, Ware county; Spencer R. Atkinson, Judge.
James
and Randall Sweat were indicted for robbery alleged to have
been committed upon George Snider on August 19, 1889. They
were tried in November, 1889, and found guilty. Their motion
for a new trial was overruled, and they bring error.
Affirmed.
A
ground in a motion for new trial which complains of the
admission of evidence, without setting it out in terms, but
designating it as the testimony of a certain named witness,
stating "what his feelings, surprises, and suspicions
were when he met the prosecutor," and relating "the
conversation had with him," is too indefinite to be
considered.
The
following is the official report:
Snider,
the prosecutor, was a witness for the state. The material
part of his testimony was as follows: "On the 19th of
August I was picking cotton, and Randall Sweat and Proff
Taylor came in the cotton path, and arrested me, without any
warrant or showing at all, and handcuffed and carried me away
from there on a horse. They took my coat, which had $62.25 in
it, and would not let me have it. They carried me about a
mile and a half, and then decided that the coat was worth a
dollar a day to take it. I told them then there was $62.25 in
it. They counted the money, and put it back in the shot sack
it was in, and put it back in the pocket, and claimed they
wanted me, not the money. It asked them to take the handcuffs
off. They said no; there was some danger of my getting away.
I told them I was willing to go anywhere they had a mind to
carry me, and then they took the handcuffs off, and said if I
tried to get away they would kill me. They first took me to
the house of James Taylor, in Ware county. They stayed there
until after dinner, and stayed out in the lane, shooting at a
mark, two or three hours, I suppose. Nothing was said there
about the money to me. Stayed there about two hours, or two
and a half. I left there and went with James and Randall
Sweat to James Sweat's. When we got there, they took my
coat that had the money in it, and locked it up in the post
office. They asked me if I wanted it locked up, and I told
them they could, if they wanted to. They locked it up, and
wouldn't let me have it. They tried to get me to own what
I had done. I told them I had not done anything, and would
not own what I had not done. They claimed I had killed two
men in Texas. At last they claimed that if I would let them
have fifty dollars I could get loose, and get away, and they
would try to get me another hat and a pair of shoes. They
said, if the other crowd got hold of me, there would be no
getting away, but they thought I could get away if I would
let them have the fifty
dollars. They talked about sending me to Waycross, and that
was the only terms they could turn me loose under,--that I
would let them have the money. They said I would have to come
to Waycross jail if I did not let them have the money. So I
let them have the fifty dollars. I was so badly frightened I
did not know what they would do. That was the only way I
could get loose. They decided to count the fifty dollars, and
I told them, if that was the only show, I would let them have
it; and James Sweat said, 'Let's count it before
anybody comes.' They opened the post office, and got the
money out. Randall Sweat counted out fifty dollars, and kept
it, and left me twelve dollars. They sold me a hat for 50
cents after they got the $50. They did not get the
shoes,--only the hat. I wore the shoes I had on. They told me
I would have to clean out from there, but gave me no
instructions as to where I should go. They told me to travel
the road at night, and, if I heard anybody coming, to crawl
off, and hide, and take to the woods the next day. They told
me that I must leave the state, and I must change my name,
and not mention their names, or anything of that kind, but to
get away from there. They made me trample my old straw hat in
a briar patch before James Sweat's house. I bought a
black wool hat from them. I left there after dark. James
Sweat got up something for me to eat, so I would not have to
stop until next day. *** It was at James Sweat's house,
in Ware county, that they got the money. I was in great fear
of danger if I did not let them have the money. I was
frightened. I stayed at James Sweat's house, before I
left, I suppose, two and a half or three hours. The first I
saw of James Sweat was when we overtook him as we went away
from Randall Crew's. Joe Taylor was with him, and we all
went along together. This was on the morning of the 19th of
last August. I had been working at Joe Taylor's before I
went to Crew's. I had been working in Ware county; had
worked for McRae and Minchew and Taylor. I got the money in
Florida. Minchew kept it a week. It was in the way, and I was
afraid I would lose it. Came to Ware county from Florida in
July, 1889. *** Went to Minchew's, and worked a week, and
went to Joe Taylor. I was arrested at Randall Crew's, in
Pierce county. *** I left James Sweat's about three
quarters of an hour after dark on the same day that they got
the money. I ate supper before I left. The Sweat boys got my
money. They gave me back my coat and things, and after they
got the money I took supper with them. *** When I was
arrested, I did not have on the coat. They claimed they did
not want the money, when it was counted out after the arrest,
but wanted me. James Sweat was postmaster, and my coat was
locked up in the post office. After supper they sold me a
hat, and asked me if I did not want something to eat, so I
would not have to stop. They fixed up something. They counted
the money before supper. I got the coat after supper. *** I
saw James Sweat once before I was arrested. It was at Joe
Taylor's, about five days before I was arrested. I talked
to him. I was with him about three quarters of an hour,--long
enough to pull a row of fodder across the field."
The
motion for a new trial contains the general grounds, a
special ground which is set out in the opinion, and a ground
of newly-discovered testimony, supported by the affidavit of
one Ruis, to the effect that he saw Snider after Snider
returned to the county in which the alleged robbery took
place. He asked Snider about the report of the taking of his
money by defendants, and Snider told him they did not get his
money, and said he did not want to talk about the matter.
Snider made this statement to him before the trial, but he
(deponent) did not say anything about it to any one because
he did not want to be a witness in the case, for the reason
that he was a friend to both the Lees and Sweats, and the...
