Whitten v. The State Of Ga.

• Decision Date: 31 July 1872
• Citation: 47 Ga. 298
• Parties: JAMES WHITTEN, plaintiff in error. v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA, defendant in error.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

47 Ga. 298

JAMES WHITTEN, plaintiff in error. v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA, defendant in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, July Term, 1872.)

Criminal law. Credibility of witness. Degree of punishment. Before Judge Harrell. Randolph Superior Court. May Term, 1872.

James Whitten was placed upon trial for the offense of assault and battery, and pleaded not guilty.

The following evidence was introduced:

F. Gore, sworn: Witness is the prosecutor; on April 22d, *1872, defendant came to witness' field, in Randolph county, where he was plowing, and notified him to attend and work the road; defendant was a road overseer; he told defendant that "he would send a hand in his place;" defendant replied that "he would not receive him;" witness then said, "if you have come here to raise a fuss with me, you must go somewhere else to raise it;" thereupon, a general quarrel arose; defendant got down from his mule, with his knife in his hand, came over the fence and was approaching witness, when witness picked up a piece of a fence rail and threatened, if he came nearer, to strike him with it; defendant then got back over the fence and rode off; witness went that day to see J. A. Moreland, who was a Justice of the Peace and road commissioner, to ascertain if he had the right to put in a hand to work in his place; Moreland told witness that he thought he had the right, if he put in a good hand; on his way back, witness met defendant in the road; defendant said to him, "Why don\'t you want to work the road, you damned, lazy son of a bitch?" defendant called witness that three times; accused witness of stealing his property from women and children; witness said he "had never stolen from him, nor had he (witness) acted as he had, to go into Pace\'s gin-house and take a cat;" defendant got down from his mule with his knife; witness had a stick, with which he was walking; defendant approached him with his knife; witness struck at him with his stick as defendant approached, and aimed to knock the knife out of his hand; they had a scuffle, in which defendant cut witness on the hand, and cut his pants on the front next the belly, witness got hold of him and held him until he agreed to let witness alone; defendant got up and walked off; defendant then picked up a piece of a rail, approached witness, and struck him a severe blow on the head, and they again had a contest, until witness a second time obtained a firm hold and held defendant until he agreed to quit; witness did not tell J. A. Moreland, at the time referred to, that Whitten did not get over the fence into the field, and that he (witness) got over the fence with the piece of rail and approached defendant; did "not tell Hart, at the time and place mentioned, a few minutes after the fight was over, that he had struck Whitten and knocked him down with the stick; witness talked with Hart at that time; showed him the cut on his hand and the cut on his pants.

Evidence for the Defendant.

John A. Moreland, sworn: Prosecutor came to see witness on the day of the difficulty, to obtain a warrant for the defendant for his conduct in the field; witness is a road commissioner and a Justice of the Peace; told witness that defendant did not get over the fence, but that he (prosecutor) got over the fence with a piece of rail; that defendant got down, tied his mule, and took out his knife; that prosecutor got back over the fence into the field; prosecutor's character for truth and veracity is bad; witness would not believe him on his oath in a Court of justice.

George P. Hart, sworn: Witness was at work in his field when prosecutor came along, a few minutes after the difficulty; prosecutor said that "he had struck defendant twice with a stick, and had left him lying in the road;" asked witness to go down and attend to him; prosecutor did not show witness the cut on his hand or on his pants; saw no blow on him except a little place on the side of his face; knows the general character of prosecutor; would not believe him on his oath in' a Court of justice.

Henry L. Hart, David Jones, Joseph Jones, R. C. Sevin, J. T. Berry, all testified that from their knowledge of the general character of prosecutor, they would not believe him on his oath in a Court of justice.

Rebuttal for the...