Case Name: JOHNSON et al. v. THE STATE
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1906-01-12
Citations: 124 Ga. 656
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHNSON et al. v. THE STATE.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 656–656

Head Matter:
JOHNSON et al. v. THE STATE.
There was no error in the rulings on the admission of evidence. The alleged newly discovered evidence was impeaching in its character. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the discretion of the trial judge in overruling the motion for a new trial will not be interfered with.
Submitted December 18, 1905.
Decided January 12, 1906.
Accusation of riot. Before Judge Fairelotb. 'City court of Wrightsville. November 21, 1905.
E. L. Stephens, for plaintiffs in error.
B. B. Blount, solicitor, contra.

Opinion:
Cobb, P. J.
Johnson and two others were arraigned upon an accusation charging them with the offense of riot. The act of riot alleged in the accusation was, surrounding the house of the prosecutor, throwing walnuts against the house, firing off pistols, and shouting to the occupants, if they didn't like it, to come out and show themselves. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant assigns error upon the refusal of the judge to grant a, new trial.
The court admitted evidence to the effect that at the time of the alleged riotous conduct the wife of the prosecutor was so badly frightened that she fainted, and further admitted in evidence a. sack containing rocks and walnuts, shown by a witness to have been picked up around the house the morning after the alleged riot. The objection to all this evidence was that it was irrelevant. There-was no merit whatever in this assignment of error. It is apparent that the evidence threw light on the conduct of the accused at the time of the alleged riot. Persons in the house claimed to have-recognized the rioters through a crack in one of the windows. One ground of the motion for a new trial is alleged newly discovered evidence as to the size of this crack, it being contended that under this-evidence it was impossible for the witnesses to have seen what they claimed to have seen. This evidence was impeaching in its character. The discretion of a trial judge exercised in passing upon a motion for a new trial based upon a ground of this character, in the absence of anything indicating an abuse of such discretion, will not. be interfered with. The evidence authorized the verdict, and no-sufficient reason has been shown for reversing the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.