Case ID: ga_78/html/0316-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blandford, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Perkins et al. vs. The State of Georgia.
    1. The evidence in this case showed that the defendants were engaged in beating another person in a violent and tumultuous manner, and warranted a verdict finding them guilty of riot under §4514 of the code.
    2. The law of assault and battery was not applicable to the case under the indictment founded on this section of the code.
    December 21, 1886.
    Criminal Law. Assault and Battery. Riot. Before Judge Boynton. Spalding Superior Court. February Term, 1886.
    Alex, and Chas. Perkims were indicted for riot. It was charged that they did, “with force and arms, in a violent and tumultuous manner, engage in fighting, cursing, quarreling and threatening, contrary to the laws,” etc. A witness for the State testified that while traveling a public road about three miles from Griffin, he came upon defendants and five other negro boys from fifteen to seventeen years of age; that they were gesticulating violently, quarreling and using profane language so loudly that it could be heard some distance away; that both defendants were engaged in fighting a third party and cursing him, his nose being bloody and showing signs of a blow; and that the witness called on them to desist, and told them he would report them to the grand jury if they did not, but they did not. Their conduct was such that the witness was compelled to quit the road and go round them in order to pursue his journey.
    The defendants relied on their statements, denying that there had been any riot, but alleging that one of their number had been cuffed by another, which resulted in a fight between them, and the others were seeking to separate them. They were found guilty. They moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence; that the evidence did not show a riot; and because the court failed to charge the jury as to what would constitute an assault and battery, although counsel insisted that the evidence did not make a case of riot, but one of assault and battery under justification.
    The motion was overruled, and the defendants excepted.
    Thos. R. Mills, for plaintiffs in error.
    E. Womack, solicitor-general, by brief, for the State.
   Blandford, Justice.

The plaintiffs in error were indicted and found guilty of a riot. They moved the court for a new trial, because the verdict was without evidence to sustain it, and because the court erred in not charging the law as to an assault and battery. This motion was refused, and this is excepted to.

The evidence showed the plaintiffs were engaged in beating another person in a violent and tumultuous manner. This evidence made out the case for the State under section 4514 of the code. The law of assault and battery was not applicable to the case, under the indictment founded on this section of the code.

Judgment affirmed.