
    5707.
    Jackson v. The State.
    Decided July 7, 1914.
    Indictment for misdemeanor; from Forsyth, superior court— Judge Patterson. April £7, 1914.
    William Jackson was convicted under an indictment charging him with a “misdemeanor, for that, on the first day of April in the year 1913, [he] did unlawfully then and there, without provocation, use to and of one Ellen Gourley, and in her presence, the said Ellen Gourley being . . a female, the following opprobrious words, abusive language, obscene, vulgar and profane language, to wit: ‘You are a damn liar; you are no more respected than a damn bitch;’ tending to cause a breach of the peace, contrary to the laws of the State,” etc. On the trial Ellen Gourley testified, that the defendant was driving a wagon along the ro,ad near the house where she was, and she went out of the house and into the road to talk'to him about a certain negro whom he had arrested and whom he had with him in the wagon, and that she told him that everybody said he was just trying to “beat the negro,” and he said, “Whoever said that is a damn liar;” and she then picked up a rock and told him she would “knock his old head off,” and he said, “Throw it,” and said, “You are no more respected than a damn bitch.” This testimony was contradicted by evidence introduced by the defendant, as well as by his statement at the trial.
   Roan, J.

On the trial of one charged with having, without provocation, used to and of a female, and in her presence, “opprobrious words, abusive language, obscene, vulgar and profane language, . . tending to cause a breach of the peace” (Penal Code, § 396), it is peculiarly a question for the jury to determine, from all the facts and circumstances detailed in the testimony and in the defendant’s statement, whether the words set out in the indictment were used, and were of the character alleged, and whether there was provocation sufficient to excuse their use. There was sufficient evidence to authorize the jury to find that the defendant used to and of the female named in the indictment, and in her presence, language of the character alleged, and the words set out in the indictment, to wit, “You are no more respected than a damn bitch,” and that this language was used without sufficient provocation. The question at issue being one of fact, to be settled by the jury, and they having sfettled it by their verdict finding the defendant guilty, and no error of law having been committed by the court in the trial of the case, this court is without, power to disturb their finding. See Dowling v. State, 7 Ga. App. 613 (67 S. E. 697) ; Echols v. State, 110 Ga. 257 (34 S. E. 289); Collins v. State, 78 Ga. 88; Williams v. State, 105 Ga. 608 (31 S. E. 738), and citations.

Judgment affirmed..

The only question raised by the bill of exceptions was whether the verdict was authorized by the evidence.

J. P. Brooke, for plaintiff in error.

Herbert Clay, solicitor-general, contra.  