Gallery v. State, 17 S.E. 863 (Ga. 1893). · Go Syfert
Search
Gallery v. State, 17 S.E. 863 (Ga. 1893). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
93 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jackson v. State (ga, 1948-07-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackson v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Ga. · 1948 · confidence medium
We have also another doctrine kindred thereto, and probably arising from the same general considerations of law, which shows itself in many decisions of this court, and of the Court of Appeals of this State, to the effect that, “There are wanton or reckless states of mind which are sometimes the equivalent of a specific intention to kill, and which may and should be treated by the jury as amounting to *49 such intention when productive of violence likely to result in the destruction of life, though not so resulting in the given instance.” Gallery v. State, 92 Ga. 463, 464 (2) ( 17 S. E. 86…
discussed Cited "see" J. A. T. v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gallery v. State, 92 Ga. 463 ( 17 SE 863 ); Rider v. State, 121 Ga. App. 677 ( 175 SE2d 69 ); Fulmer v. State, 74 Ga. App. 298 (4) ( 39 SE2d 732 ).
discussed Cited "see" J. A. T. v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gallery v. State, 92 Ga. 463 ( 17 SE 863 ); Rider v. State, 121 Ga. App. 677 ( 175 SE2d 69 ); Fulmer v. State, 74 Ga. App. 298 (4) ( 39 SE2d 732 ).
Gallery
v.
State
Supreme Court of Georgia.
May 8, 1893.
17 S.E. 863
John R. Cooper, for plaintiff in error., W. H. Felton, Jr., solicitor-general, contra.
Cited by 58 opinions  |  Published

Judgment reversed.

“ The law presumes that a man intends to do the reasonable results of Ms act; and if a man kill another by violence, and notMng more is shown, the law presumes that to be done with malice and to be murder; and if a man assault another with a weapon likely to produce death, intending to kill him or not caring whether he kills him or not, then that would be the malice under the law. If a man shoot in a crowd with a pistol loaded, although he may not intend to hit any particular person, that would be malice under the law. If a man assault another -without provocation with a weapon likely to produce death, intending to inflict serious bodily harm on him or kill Mm, that would be malice under the law. “ It [the fears of a reasonable man] does not mean the fears of a coward or poltroon; it means the fears of a man reasonably courageous.” John R. Cooper, for plaintiff in error. W. H. Felton, Jr., solicitor-general, contra.