22 Ga. 75 | Ga. | 1857
By the Court.
delivering the opinion.
We shall not undertake to notice each specification in the* motion for a new trial, but group them together for the sake* of brevity.
Could we say the same thing here — in view of the facts disclosed in this record ? Have counsel in all their commendable zeal pointed out a scintilla of evidence which would reduce this killing to involuntary manslaughter? Did the prisoner in any of his confessions intimate any circumstance which should justify such a supposition ?. Did he say to the widowed wife, who, when she overtook him on the road, told him that ihe had killed her husband, that the shot was accidental, or that he did not intend to take his life, but to cripple him ? Nothing of the kind.
It was then, as the Court stated, either murder, or voluntary manslaughter, or justifiable homicide. And so the jury were obliged to find. And such was the ruling of this Court in Boyd vs. the State, 17. Ga. Rep. 193.
Counsel insist, that inasmuch, as any grade of homicide may be found under-any indictment for murder, that it is the duty of the Court to charge, on each, as each is necessarily put in issue bjr the pleadings. We demur to this proposition ; and on the contrary, hold that the charge should apply to the case made by the pleadings and the proof. And that in just such a-case as this, to charge th.e jury as to the crime of involuntary manslaughter, would have been as inapplicable to the case, as to have instructed them as to the law of arson or robbery.
We do not see that this proof could, by any possibility, change or modify the verdict of the jury. It ought not.
Upon any view of the case, we are constrained to affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court, overruling the motion for a new trial.
We sincerely pity this wretched man. But the law must • be vindicated. Human life, the most sacred of God’s gifts, must be protected.
Judgment affirmed.