Case ID: ga_76/html/0786-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Jackson, Chief Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kimbrough vs. The State of Georgia.
    On the trial of an indictment for larceny from the house, it was admissible to show that the defendant went to the owner of the stolen property and said that the latter had presented him at court'; that if he swore to the tracks found at the scene of the offense, the defendan t woul d be hurt; otherwise he would not be; that lie wanted the owner to go to his lawyers and “ swear them tracks did not get the cotton;” and that he would rather pay a bale of cotton, or $100, than for the owner to swear to the tracks. Such testimony was not objectionable on the ground that it was in the nature of a confession, or because counsel for defendant desired to examine a witness in the absence of the jury as to its admissibility.
    May 1, 1886.
    Criminal Law. Evidence. Before Judge Bower. Webster Superior Court. October Term, 1885.
    Reported in the decision.
    E. G. Simmons, for plaintiff in error.
    O. B. Hudson, solicitor general, by W. A. Hawkins, for the state.
   Jackson, Chief Justice.

The defendant was found guilty of larceny from the house, and comes to this court on a single exception presented by his counsel.

That is, 1 hat a witness was allowed to testify that “ sometime atier Christmas, defendant came to see my husband and. said, ‘ Bill, you presented me at court. Now, if you swear to the tracks, I’ll be hurt, and if you don’t, I won’t be hurt. Now, I want you to go to my lawyers and swear them tracks did not get the cotton. I had rather pay a bale of cotton, or a hundred dollars, than for you to do it.’ ” Defendant’s counsel objected,on the ground that, if the evidence was in tlxe nature of confessions, he desired to examine the witness, in the absence of the jury, as to its admissibility; and further, that it was in the nature of a confession without more. On this, error is assigned here. There is none.

Judgment affirmed. 
      
       The witness was the wife of the owner of the stolen property. The defendant was tried on a special presentment.