Case ID: ga-app_13/html/0677-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pottle, J. Russell, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

5179.
    Jones v. The State.
    Decided October 28, 1913.
   Pottle, J.

The evidence would have authorized a conviction of assault with intent to murder. It abundantly justified the verdict of shooting at another. The instructions complained of were free from substantial error. Taken as a whole, the charge was more favorable to the accused than he had a right to demand. No reason appears for reversing the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Russell, J.,

dissenting. Without regard to the real truth of the transaction (which the testimony of the witnesses seems to confuse rather than to clarify), I am of the opinion that the charge complained of was not adjusted to the defenses presented by the accused upon his trial, and practically eliminated his statement to the jury.

Indictment for assault with intent to murder; from Chatham superior court — Judge Charlton. August 19, 1913.

Raiford Falligant, Gordon Saussy, for plaintiff in error.

Walter 0. Hartridge, solicitor-general, contra.