Case Name: Hawthorne v. The State
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1913-06-10
Citations: 12 Ga. App. 811
Docket Number: 4893
Parties: Hawthorne v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 811–812

Head Matter:
4893.
Hawthorne v. The State.
Decided June 10, 1913.
Indictment for assault with intent to murder; from Columbia superior court—Judge H. C. Hammond. March 29, 1913.
From the evidence it appears that Lewis Young, a negro, upon whom it was alleged that the assault was committed, was on a road at night, with other negroes, returning from a wedding, when a man ahead of them, who had been lying down at a railroad which crossed this road, and who, on account of the darkness, was not recognized, shot him with' a load of bird-shot, and fled. A shoe was found the next morning at the place of the shooting, and from that place a pair of tracks—one of them a shoe track and the other a barefoot track—were traced for some distance to a point where the mate of the first-mentioned shoe was found. The footprints continued from that point-until the traces were lost. It was testified, that these shoes were the shoes of Tom Hawthorne, the ’accused, and had been often seen on his feet, and that they could be identified by the strings. One of the witnesses stated that he had never seen another negro with strings like these in his shoes. A brother of Tom Hawthorne was at that time in jail on the charge of shooting Lewis Young, and Tom Hawthorne had called to see Lewis Young a short time before the second shooting and tried to induce him to agree to a compromise of the case, but his efforts did .not succeed. It was testified that he then “seemed angry and made threats;” “he was threatening very much about his brother being in jail,” but “did not say anything about doing anybody any harm.” After the second shooting he said that the man who did the shooting was outside of the jail, that his brother was in jail and could not have done it. Lewis Young testified that he had never had any trouble with Tom Hawthorne. .

Opinion:
Hill, C. J.
No error of law is complained of, and tlie evidence, although circumstantial, is sufficient to support the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.
J. B. Burnside, A. K. Forney, for plaintiff in error.
A. L. Franklin, solicitor-general, J ohn M. Graham, contra.