Walker v. The State

Decision Date31 March 1859
Citation28 Ga. 254
PartiesWALKER. vs. THE STATE.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Indictment, for hog stealing, in Haralson superior court. Tried before Judge Hammond, October Term, 1858.

The plaintiff in error was indicted for hog stealing and found guilty. His counsel moved for a new trial on the following grounds:

1. Because the court erred in not permitting defendant to prove what he said in explanation of his possession of the hog, when found in his possession.

2. Because the court erred in refusing to allow defendant to prove the offer of James Plott to sell a lot of hogs to E. J. Newman, on Walsen creek, and the description he gave of their different marks, and why they were so marked.

3. Because the court erred in refusing to admit in evidence a conversation between James Plott and Henry Hill, in relation to the terms of the contract of the sale of certain hogs by Plott to Hill.

4. 5. Because the verdict was contrary to law, the charge of the court, and the evidence.

The court overruled the motion and defendant excepted.

Burke & Black, for plaintiff in error.

Sol. Gen. Fielder, contra.

By the Court.—Benning, J., delivering the opinion.

All of the grounds of the motion but two, were abandoned. These two were the first and last.

As to the first—

Read the prosecution. The owner of the hogs alleged to have been taken, testified as follows: " That in December, 1857, he saw a black spotted hog in a pen near defendant's house; knew the hog; it belonged to witness; the marks had been changed to two splits in each ear—the splits looked like they had not been long made, and not fully healed—the hog had been altered. Witness had not seen the hog in three or four weeks—witness don't know who put the hog in the pen—did not propose to take the hog, but said he would come back, but did not—the pen was thirty or forty yards from the house of the defendant, close to his corn crib—witness lives ten or twelve miles from defendant. The hog was in the pen with other hogs, but don\'t know that the marks of the others had been changed."

" Defendant then offered to prove by said Reed, what the Defendant said in explanation of the possession of the hog, when the said Reed went to the house of defendant, and found him in possession of said hog, and defendant offered in evidence what the said Reed said to the defendant, " relative to said Reed's right and ownership to said hog, and what the defendant said in reply to said Reed, which the court refused to allow."

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Dutch Ioldstroiim.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1919
    ...Com. v. Rowe, 105 Mass. 590; Payne v. State, 57 Miss. 348; State v. Fitzgerald, 72 Vt 142; Martin v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. Rep. 528; Walker v. State, 28 Ga. 254: State v. Young, 41 La. Ann. 94: Mason v. State, 171 Ind. 78: Smith v. State, 103 Ala. 40; Hubbard v. State, 107 Ala. 33 Bryant v. St......
  • Miller v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 1946
    ...734; Dozier v. McWhorter, 117 Ga. 786, 790, 45 S.E. 61. ' Mineola Mill Co. v. Griffin, 18 Ga.App. 668(2), 90 S.E. 360. See also Walker v. State, 28 Ga. 254; Long v. 22 Ga. 40; Ellison v. State, 21 Ga.App. 259, 94 S.E. 253; Lovett v. State, 80 Ga. 255, 4 S.E. 912. The officer having testifie......
  • Miller v. State, 31153.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 1946
    ...734; Dozier v. Mc-Whorter, 117 Ga. 786, 790, 45 S.E. 61." Mineola Mill Co. v. Griffin, 18 Ga.App. 668(2), 90 S.E. 360. See also Walker v. State, 28 Ga. 254; Long v. State, 22 Ga. 40; Ellison v. State, 21 Ga.App. 259, 94 S.E. 253; Lovett v. State, 80 Ga. 255, 4 S.E. 912. The officer having t......
  • State v. White
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1905
    ...State, 103 Ala. 40, 16 South. 12, is to the same effect; and so are Payne v. State, 57 Miss. 348, Com. v. Rowe, 105 Mass. 590, and Walker v. State, 28 Ga. 254. Underhill states the rule to be that any declaration made by the accused explaining the reason or character of his possession, if m......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT