Kimbrough v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Kimbrough v. State

76 Ga. 786

DecidedMay 1, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 76 Ga. 786 (Kimbrough 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

Kimbrough v. State, 76 Ga. 786 (Ga. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Jackson, Chief Justice.

The defendant was found guilty of larceny from the [787]*787house, and comes to this court on a single exception presented by his counsel.

That is, 1 hat a witness

* was allowed to testify that “ sometime atier Christmas, defendant came to see my husband and. said, ‘ Bill, you presented me at court. Now, if you swear to the tracks, I’ll be hurt, and if you don’t, I won’t be hurt. Now, I want you to go to my lawyers and swear them tracks did not get the cotton. I had rather pay a bale of cotton, or a hundred dollars, than for you to do it.’ ” Defendant’s counsel objected,on the ground that, if the evidence was in tlxe nature of confessions, he desired to examine the witness, in the absence of the jury, as to its admissibility; and further, that it was in the nature of a confession without more. On this, error is assigned here. There is none.

Judgment affirmed.

The witness was the wife of the owner of the stolen property. The defendant was tried on a special presentment.

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

Jackson, Chief Justice.

The defendant was found guilty of larceny from the [787]*787house, and comes to this court on a single exception presented by his counsel.

That is, 1 hat a witness

* was allowed to testify that “ sometime atier Christmas, defendant came to see my husband and. said, ‘ Bill, you presented me at court. Now, if you swear to the tracks, I’ll be hurt, and if you don’t, I won’t be hurt. Now, I want you to go to my lawyers and swear them tracks did not get the cotton. I had rather pay a bale of cotton, or a hundred dollars, than for you to do it.’ ” Defendant’s counsel objected,on the ground that, if the evidence was in tlxe nature of confessions, he desired to examine the witness, in the absence of the jury, as to its admissibility; and further, that it was in the nature of a confession without more. On this, error is assigned here. There is none.

Judgment affirmed.

The witness was the wife of the owner of the stolen property. The defendant was tried on a special presentment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 Ga. 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimbrough-v-state-ga-1886.