Wynne v. State

• Decision Date: 02 August 1905
• Citation: 51 S.E. 636,123 Ga. 566
• Parties: WYNNE v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

51 S.E. 636

123 Ga. 566

WYNNE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 2, 1905

Syllabus by the Court.

For the admission of evidence to be a ground of a motion for a new trial, it must appear what objection was urged to it at the time. It is not enough to state what the objection was at the time when the new trial was asked.

A barbecue on the 4th of July, at which people are assembled to the number of 400 or 500, is a "public gathering," within the meaning of Pen. Code 1895, § 342, which declares it to be a misdemeanor for one not an arresting officer in the discharge of his duties, or a member of his posse, to carry about his person a deadly weapon to any public gathering, except at militia muster grounds.

If a person, knowing that a public gathering would occur at a certain time and place, shortly beforehand carried a deadly weapon to a place near by in order to have it accessible when the gathering occurred, and while it was in progress went to the place of deposit, obtained actual possession of the weapon, and carried it about his person to the gathering and into the crowd assembled, he was guilty of the offense of carrying a deadly weapon to a public gathering, as prescribed by Pen. Code 1895, § 342.

The evidence warranted the verdict.

Error from Superior Court, Taliaferro County; H. M. Holden, Judge.

Dave Wynne was convicted of carrying a shotgun to a public gathering, and brings error. Affirmed.

Hawes Cloud, for plaintiff in error.

David H. Meadow, Sol. Gen., for the State.

LUMPKIN J. (after stating the facts).

1. One ground of the motion for a new trial complains that the court allowed a witness to testify that he thought the defendant was in a position to see whether other people brought guns from Terrell's residence; that from the position where the defendant was he could have seen this; and that other people did bring guns to the scene of the difficulty. It does not appear what ground of objection was urged to this evidence when it was introduced. It is stated in the motion for a new trial that "said question and answer are irrelevant, and said answer is purely an opinion of the witness, without having any facts upon which such opinion is based." This was the opinion of the attorney when movant's motion for a new trial was made, but whether this ground of objection was urged at the time of the trial does not appear. It cannot, therefore, be considered.

2-4. The purpose of Pen. Code 1895, § 342, is to protect the public against the danger arising from allowing persons to...