Looking at ngrams: angried it seems to have been most popular in the early 1800's.

Looking at results for those years we find usages such as

and this gives me the impression that "angried" is an old and rare alternative spelling of "angered". Use it at your own peril.

Note that the quote you provided is in italics and uttered by a child in a novel which points to it not necessarily reflecting standard usage.

We have a lot of old texts. Examples:

https://i.sstatic.net/c3ytb.png -- a recent book quoting an old text

https://i.sstatic.net/xCg6W.png -- a recent book quoting an old text

https://i.sstatic.net/PNCia.png -- an old text

There were also some contemporary usages. Examples:

https://i.sstatic.net/CbSJt.png -- used by an unruly five-year-old, in italics

https://i.sstatic.net/MlmsO.png -- person A uses "angried", B corrects her

https://i.sstatic.net/m8pev.png -- a quote in heavy dialect

https://i.sstatic.net/4siNO.png -- self-published poetry in archaic-sounding language (link)

https://i.sstatic.net/glpMR.png -- self-published youth thriller (link)

If you insist on these sources being enough for you to use the word "angried" that's completely fine. I would use the common and accepted word "angered" instead.

Bonus: ngrams: angered vs angried

Looking at ngrams: angried it seems to have been most popular in the early 1800's and largely non-existent in the last century.

Looking at results for those years when it was slightly more popular, we find usages such as

and this gives me the impression that "angried" is an old and rare alternative spelling of "angered". See also angered vs angried.

Note that the quote you provided is in italics and uttered by a child in a novel which points to it not necessarily reflecting standard usage. See the full quote, also listed below in my edit.

Conclusion: use it at your own peril.

We have a lot of old texts. Examples:

• https://i.sstatic.net/c3ytb.png -- a recent book quoting an old text
• https://i.sstatic.net/xCg6W.png -- a recent book quoting an old text
• https://i.sstatic.net/PNCia.png -- an old text

There were also some contemporary usages. Examples:

• https://i.sstatic.net/CbSJt.png -- used by an unruly five-year-old, in italics
• https://i.sstatic.net/MlmsO.png -- person A uses "angried", B corrects her
• https://i.sstatic.net/m8pev.png -- a quote in heavy dialect

• https://i.sstatic.net/4siNO.png -- self-published archaic-sounding poetry in (link)
• https://i.sstatic.net/glpMR.png -- self-published youth thriller (link)

One last thing: let's look at angried vs soliloquy. Note how the rather rare word "soliloquy" is more than 10000 times more common than angried throughout the whole century.

If none of these things convince you, and you insist on these sources being enough for you to use the word "angried", that's completely fine. I would use the common and accepted word "angered" instead.

Looking at ngrams: angried it seems to have been most popular in the early 1800's.

Looking at results for those years we find usages such as

• "[..] but Ahab had angried God"
• "Our temperate Sage, though angried at that spirit of contradiction [..]"
• "[..] seemed very sorry, and desirous of appeasing the angried translator"

and this gives me the impression that "angried" is an old and rare alternative spelling of "angered". Use it at your own peril.

Note that the quote you provided is in italics and uttered by a child in a novel which points to it not necessarily reflecting standard usage.

Bonus: ngrams: angered vs angried

Looking at ngrams: angried it seems to have been most popular in the early 1800's.

Looking at results for those years we find usages such as

• "[..] but Ahab had angried God"
• "Our temperate Sage, though angried at that spirit of contradiction [..]"
• "[..] seemed very sorry, and desirous of appeasing the angried translator"

and this gives me the impression that "angried" is an old and rare alternative spelling of "angered". Use it at your own peril.

Note that the quote you provided is in italics and uttered by a child in a novel which points to it not necessarily reflecting standard usage.

Edit:

Since you insist that my assessment of your search link was wrong, let's have a look.

We have a lot of old texts. Examples:

https://i.sstatic.net/c3ytb.png -- a recent book quoting an old text

https://i.sstatic.net/xCg6W.png -- a recent book quoting an old text

https://i.sstatic.net/PNCia.png -- an old text

There were also some contemporary usages. Examples:

https://i.sstatic.net/CbSJt.png -- used by an unruly five-year-old, in italics

https://i.sstatic.net/MlmsO.png -- person A uses "angried", B corrects her

https://i.sstatic.net/m8pev.png -- a quote in heavy dialect

Apart from these, there were some results which had in common that they

1. used the word "angried" once in the whole book
2. were published through self-publishing services

For instance:

https://i.sstatic.net/4siNO.png -- self-published poetry in archaic-sounding language (link)

https://i.sstatic.net/glpMR.png -- self-published youth thriller (link)

If you insist on these sources being enough for you to use the word "angried" that's completely fine. I would use the common and accepted word "angered" instead.

Bonus: ngrams: angered vs angried