Humphrey v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Humphrey v. State

97 S.E. 275, 23 Ga. App. 5, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 3

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1918

Docket9838

StatusPublished

This text of 97 S.E. 275 (Humphrey v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Humphrey v. State, 97 S.E. 275, 23 Ga. App. 5, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 3 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Harwell, J.

Only a question of fact is involved in this case. Trouble arose between two small boys—one fourteen and the other seven years of age—over a can of fish-bait and some peanuts. On the ground near them lay a loaded shotgun belonging to a third child, aged twelve. The oldest boy seized the gun, pointed it at the seven-year-old child, and discharged it in his face, wounding him and destroying one of his eyes. Upon the trial for assault with intent to murder a verdict of “shooting at another,” with a recommendation to mercy, was returned; the jury declining to believe the defendant’s statement. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and this court can not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Harwell, J.

Only a question of fact is involved in this case. Trouble arose between two small boys—one fourteen and the other seven years of age—over a can of fish-bait and some peanuts. On the ground near them lay a loaded shotgun belonging to a third child, aged twelve. The oldest boy seized the gun, pointed it at the seven-year-old child, and discharged it in his face, wounding him and destroying one of his eyes. Upon the trial for assault with intent to murder a verdict of “shooting at another,” with a recommendation to mercy, was returned; the jury declining to believe the defendant’s statement. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and this court can not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E. 275, 23 Ga. App. 5, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrey-v-state-gactapp-1918.