Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 12 July 1904
• Citation: 120 Ga. 488,48 S.E. 149
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

48 S.E. 149

120 Ga. 488

WILLIAMS

v.STATE

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 12, 1904

FORCIBLE ENTRY—ELEMENTS OF OFFENSE—NEW TRIAL—MOTION—APPROVAL.

1. Unless the recitals of fact contained in a ground of a motion for a new trial are approved or certified as true by the trial judge, the errors therein alleged cannot be considered. The simple allowance of an amendment to the motion does not amount to an approval.

2. To constitute forcible entry, there need be only such a number of persons or show of force as is calculated to deter the person in possession from undertaking to send them away or retain his possession. It is not necessary that the party in possession resist to such an extent that he is actually assaulted

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Baxley; J. I. Carter, Judge.

G. W. Williams was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.

Thomas & Parker, for plaintiff in error.

N. J. Holton, for the State.

EVANS, J. Williams and Deen both claimed the right of possession of a certain house. Deen moved his tenant, Jones, into the house about which there was a disputed ownership. The next day after Jones moved in, the defendant, Williams, armed with a gun, and accompanied by his son-in-law and several persons, came to the disputed tenement, and demanded possession of the same from Jones and his wife in very emphatic language. Defendant asked Mrs. Jones for the keys, and upon her refusal to surrender them said to her that if she did not give pos-session of the house mere would be a worse time than there ever had been; that he was going to have possession right then or die and go to hell. After this emphatic deliverance, Mrs. Jones opened the door, and Williams entered the house. Mrs. Jones then announced that she would move out. She further testified that defendant's gun and threats did not have any effect on her, except she was afraid that her husband would get mad and lose his head. The husband testified that he gave up possession because he did not want any disturbance and did not want to be burned out. This was substantially the state's case on the trial of an accusation against Williams for the forcible entry of this house. The testimony of the defendant's witnesses tended to contradict the account of the occurrence as detailed by Jones and his wife, who were the only witnesses for the state. The jury found the defendant guilty. He moved for a new trial on the general grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and the evidence. On the hearing of the motion an amendment was allowed by the court, and the motion for a new trial was overruled. It Is to this judgment the defendant excepts.

1. This...