Case ID: ga_84/html/0524-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Blandford, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

King v. The State of Georgia.
    December 16, 1889.
    Criminal law. Murder. Evidence. New trial. Before Judge Milner. Gordon-superior court. February term, 1889.
    Amos King was indicted for murder, on Friday, December 6, 1888, of Daniel Printup. The evidence was entirely circumstantial. Printup was found, about three or half past three o’clock in the morning, lying dead near the railroad track and depot in the town of Calhoun, Gordon county, between the main and side track, his head towards the main line. Trains passed frequently during the night; the way-freight came at half past three, but he was not killed by that train. There was no blood on the tracks. He was cold and stiff, except one leg, which seemed to be limp. His skull was fractured. There was a gash, sufficient to have caused his death, on the right side of his head, about three inches long, extending to his brain, and looking as if it had been done with some sharp instrument like an axe. The witness who so testified also said that the wound could have been made with a round stick, and that it looked like it was done with a stick or shovel. Printup’s leg was broken, according to the testimony of one witness. Another testified that a heel was torn off but it had not bled any, that the wound on the head looked like it had been cut with something, and that there was a small puddle of blood where the body was lying. A passenger-train passed this place at fourteen minutes after two o’clock, but there was no indication that it killed Printup. The corner of a passenger-coach is round. On the night of the killing, Printup, defendant and others were at a party, and defendant was drinking and shoving and knocking one Hamp Bosseau, and Printup told him that Ilamp’s father had just died and it looked like defendant wanted to impose on his boy and run over him; but no further quarrel appears to have occurred. With a number of others, Printup left the pai’ty, stopped at the house of one Hester Ann, and left there alone before twelve o’clock. On the way to this house, he and those with him were approached by defendant, and a little conversation ensued between defendant and one Jennie Bosseau relative to her carrying some chickens to Rome, where defendant’s family lived. When defendant left this crowd, he went towards the railroad, and they went down the street. He returned to the party about one o’clock, and about fifteen minutes afterwards, Bill Harlon (who had gone out with Printup when he left) came in, and they sat down. Bill looked like he was asleep, had his head down between his hands; they did not take much further part in the party; did not have much to say. Defendant also had a little row with a boy named Willie Harper, and John Harper interfered, and defendant got a little mad and asked John if he wanted to take it up. Defendant and Jennie Bosseauwere sitting side by side; Will Harper was drunk and going about cursing, and wanted to get out between defendant and Jennie, and defendant told him to go off, and pushed him around; and Printup told John Harper that his brother and defendant were drunk, and to take him away and not let him be slapped around; and at last Jennie caught hold of Will and said, “ Come, let’s go,” and they left. Defendant left the party the second time about half past one or two o’clock. Nancy Lay, who left with him, testified that he went home with her and staid there from two until five o’clock; that there was only one room, with two beds in it, and one door; that he laid in one bed by himself, and she never missed him during the night; and .that she was sure he was in the room from two until five o’clock. She staid up only long enough to fix the bed, got up when the four o’clock passenger-train went down, and when the five o’clock train passed she left the house, leaving defendant there in bed. Printup does not appear to have been seen again after he left Hester Ann’s until his body was found. His clothing was not much disturbed and looked much like it looked previously in the night. Bill Harlon testified that he did not go back to the party at all; that he did not know who killed Printup; that he left the party with Printup and others, left them before they reached Hester Ann’s, went home and went to bed Two days after the killing, Nancy Lay discovered a stain on the pillow-cases on which defendant had slept. No one else had slept on them, and nobody had slept in the bed since he did. She could not say whether or not it was blood. The coroner examined them after the inquest was over. He testified that he thought the stain was blood, that he examined for blood stains on defendant, but did not find anything that looked like blood. No witness testified as to noticing any indications of blood on defendant. About half past six o’clock Friday morning, about a mile from one Peacock’s, towards whose place defendant was going, he told two witnesses that Printup was lying dead on the railroad; and said he (defendant) was going to Peacock’s. About the same time, he asked another if she had heard the news about deceased; did not say how dead deceased was. “ At about good daylight,” he told another that deceased “ was dead as hell”; said he knew it was deceased by his “ damned red hat.” He told this witness he came from Peacock’s, which was about a mile and a half off. He had been working for Peacock, and was at his house on Saturday but was absent on Friday. Peacock and a number of other witnesses (all who testified on the subject) swore that he was of good character, peaceable, industrious and hard-working. No one testified as t'o any quarrelling or previous difficulty between him .and Printup. The father of Printup testified that defendant told him, “ They lay the death of Daniel down to me, and the time’s coming when I will tell what I know. I never wounded him or nothing.” The jury found the dendant guilty, with recommendation to the mercy of the court, and he moved for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. The motion was overruled, and he excepted.
   Blandford, J.

The evidence introduced on the part of the State to show the guilt of the plaintiff in error of the crime of murder, is so obscure as to lead to the belief that justice would require another trial of this case. Judgment reversed,.

W. P. Ranicin, for plaintiff in error.

Clifford Anderson, attorney-general, and A. W. Fite, solicitor-general, for the State.