Case Name: Williams v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1901-07-17
Citations: 113 Ga. 704
Docket Number: 
Parties: Williams v. The State.
Judges: All the Justices concurring.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
Williams v. The State.
Argued May 20,
Decided July 17, 1901.
Indictment for murder. Before Judge Eelton. Houston superior court. May 3, 1901.
Romulus Williams was convicted of the murder of Adam Hunnicutt; and he excepted to the refusal of a new trial. They went to a frolic on the night of December 9, 1900. The defendant accompanied lizzie Ross in going there. Hunnicutt accompanied heron the way home after midnight; and they were followed by defendant and Bob Taylor. As these two overtook them, defendant-shot Hunnicutt in the back, and, as he turned round, shot him in the breast or the side. The defendant made a statement in which he set up, in brief, that Hunnicutt became angry with him for going to the frolic with Lizzie Ross; that when-he overtook them Hunnicutt ran his hand into his pocket after his knife, threatened defendant’s life, and started toward him; and that he shot Hunnicutt in self-defense. There was testimony that Hunnicutt made no attempt to draw a knife, nor did either of the witnesses see him have a knife; but that an open knife was taken from his pocket-after he was killed. The only special assignment of error is, that the court, in stating the contentions of the defendant, used this language: “that he accompanied it with the act of putting his-hand in his pocket as if to draw a weapon, and that it was dark and he (defendant) could hot see whether he was drawing a weapon or not; ” whereas the defendant did not contend that he could not see whether Hunnieutt was drawing a weapon or not.

Opinion:
Little, J.
The evidence fully sustained the verdict of the jury. The error of the trial judge in inaccurately stating the contentions of the defendant, taken in connection with all the instructions given, was manifestly not harmful to-the defendant, and therefore affords no legal cause for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concurring.
Du/ncan & Duncan and JR. JSf. J&oltzclaw, for plaintiff in error.
J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and William, Brunson, solicitor-general, contra.