Case Name: Miller v. The State
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1919-11-04
Citations: 24 Ga. App. 354
Docket Number: 10868
Parties: Miller v. The State.
Judges: Lulco and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 24
Pages: 354–355

Head Matter:
10868.
Miller v. The State.
Decided November 4, 1919.
Rehearing denied December 9, 1919.
Accusation of stabbing; from city court of Macon—Judge Guerry. August 12, 1919.
Ophelia Miller was charged with having cut and stabbed Orena (or Irene) Webb, not in self-defense and not under other circumstances of justification. The defendant, in her statement at the trial, said: “The reason I cut her was on account of my husband.” She stated that she had seen him going with this woman, that the woman wrote to him that she was coming to meet him, and went to a house across the alley from the house in which the defendant and her husband, John Miller, lived, and called him and whistled for him, but he did not answer. The defendant added: “So I got mad and walked across the street, and I said, ‘John is my husband and I am his wife, and I know you are goings together all the time;’ and she jumped up and cursed me, and was trying to fight me, and I grabbed her and cut her. . . I tells her she had to leave him alone, and she jumped up and commenced cursing, and I cut her with a knife.” A witness for the State testified that Irene Webb said, “There is John Miller, where is his wife?” and the defendant walked up to her and said, “Who do you want to see, Johnnie Miller?” and began cutting her. Irene Webb, in her testimony, denied that she went to meet the defendant’s husband, or called to him, or cursed or said anything to the defendant. She testified that the defendant charged her with having come to the house to see John Miller, and then threw her across a bed and commenced cutting her. A love letter signed “Miss Irene Webb,” and addressed, “My dear John,” asking him to meet the writer at a certain time and place, and saying she did not “care a damn” about his wife and would “stand a shot” about him, was shown to the witness Irene Webb; she denied that she had written or signed it, or knew anything about it; and the court refused to admit it in evidence when the defendant sought to introduce it. In the 9th special ground of the motion for a new trial it is alleged that the court erred in excluding this letter. In a note to this ground the judge referred to the denial of Irene Webb that it was her letter. The court charged the jury: “If the defendant in this ease cut Orena Webb at the time and place stated in the accusation, on account of her husband, meaning thereby to prevent the girl having sexual intercourse with him, if the defendant’s husband was not there at the time, if no enterprise was going on at the time for such illicit purpose, or circumstances at the time that made it appear that such could have occurred, I charge you that the defendant is guilty.” The court further charged, “If you believe from her statement and the evidence in the case that she cut her under circumstances, as they appear in all the evidence in the case, to prevent illicit intercourse between the husband of the defendant and the girl, then I charge you that under the law she is guilty and it is your duty to so find.” The court charged also that profanity or insulting language would not justify the cutting. These and other instructions are complained of in the motion for a new trial.

Opinion:
Broyles, C. J.
1. In the light of the note of the trial judge, tliex'e is no merit in the 9th special gx-ound of the motion for a new trial.
2. The vei'dict was demanded by the evidence and the statement of the defendant; and therefore, if there were any errors in the charge of the court, they were harmless.
3. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
Lulco and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.
Hubert Rawls, Feagin & Hancock, for plaintiff in error.
Will Gunn, solicitor, contra.