Bard v. State

55 Ga. 319
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 55 Ga. 319 (Bard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bard v. State, 55 Ga. 319 (Ga. 1875).

Opinion

Jackson, Judge.

This was an indictment for an assault with intent to murder. The indictment charged that the defendant, John Bard, “with force and arms, and a knife, a weapon likely to produce death, in and upon one William A. Spencer, in the peace of the state, did make an assault with intent unlawfully to kill the said Spencer with malice aforethought, the said Bard then and there being a person of sound memory and discretion, and with said knife the said Bard did then and there unlawfully cut, stab and wound the said Spencer.” The jury returned a verdict for an assault, and the defendant moved to arrest the judgment on the ground that the assault was not charged with sufficient certainty, and particularly that the assault was not charged to have been unlawfully done.

1. We think that if the indictment had closed with the words “did make an assault,” it would have been a full description of that offense, under- our Code. It was not necessary to aver that the' assault was unlawful. But when the assault with intent to murder was so charged in the indictment as to have supported a verdict for that offense, had one been rendered, it is too well settled to admit of doubt that the verdict for the lesser offense of an assault will be sustained ; and when the indictment further charges an unlawful cutting, stabbing and wounding with a knife, it makes that which was as clear as a sunbeam before still clearer, if it be possible.

2. If it be necessary to charge that the assault was'unlawful, taking all the indictment together, it does charge it with certainty. The verdict of stabbing, of assault and battery, or of assault, either of them might have been rendered and would have been sustained by this indictment, and the motion to [321]*321arrest the judgment was properly overruled, and the judgment below is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Wyatt
759 S.E.2d 500 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2014)
Smith v. State
193 S.E.2d 921 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Ridley v. State
185 S.E. 376 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Peters v. State
171 S.E. 266 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Hammond v. State
113 S.E. 221 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Fields v. State
58 S.E. 327 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Watson v. State
43 S.E. 32 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Goldin v. State
30 S.E. 749 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Franklin v. State
11 S.E. 876 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 Ga. 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bard-v-state-ga-1875.