White v. State

• Decision Date: 11 November 1904
• Parties: WHITE v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 941

121 Ga. 191

WHITE

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 11, 1904.

CRIMINAL LAW—CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS—INSTRUCTIONS.

1. After a witness for the state in a criminal case had testified that he was a detective employed to secure evidence of violations of law of the character charged in the case on trial, and that he was to receive compensation for his services, but that his compensation was not in any way dependent upon conviction in the case, being a salary paid by the detective agency with which he was connected, it was not error to refuse to permit the witness to be examined as to what was the amount of the salary thus paid, when it did not appear that the result of the case would have any bearing upon his future retention as an employe by the detective agency.

¶ 1. See Witnesses, vol. 50, Cent. Dig. §§ 1196, 1197.

2. The words "Sect. 1548 read, " appearing in a charge to the jury, indicate with sufficient certainty that what was read was the section of the Code of this state of that number.

3. The evidence warranted the verdict, and there was no error requiring a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Sandersville; P. R. Taliaferro, Judge.

Alineta White was convicted of selling liquor illegally, and brings error. Affirmed.

E. W. Jordan, for plaintiff in error.

Gus H. Howard, Sol., for the State.

COBB, J. The accused was convicted of selling liquor in violation of law, and excepted to the overruling of his motion for a new trial.

1. A witness for the state testified that he was a detective, employed by a detective agency at a stated salary; that he had been sent by this agency to discover violations of the prohibition law in the county where the trial was had; and that, while he was paid for his services, his compensation was not in any way dependent upon success in this or in any given case. The judge refused to require the witness to answer as to the amount of his salary. While we do not think this evidence would have been' altogether irrelevant and immaterial, still it was not of such a character that its rejection would require a reversal of the judgment, in view of the fact that there is nothing in the record to indicate that the failure of the detective to secure conviction in this or any other case would probably result in a loss of employment by the detective agency. See, in this connection, State v. Carroll, 85 Iowa, 1, 51 N. W. 1159. Parties charged with crime, who are confronted with paid detectives as...