Anderson v. State

122 S.E. 624, 32 Ga. App. 71, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 263
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 16, 1924·No. 15304·Published

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Eor no reason alleged does the excerpt from the charge, of which complaint is made, require the grant of a new trial, when it is considered in connection with the facts of the case. See Belcher v. State, 25 Ga. App. 493 (103 S. E. 852).

2. There was direct evidence that in the smoke-house of the defendant, at his residence, there was found a fifty-gallon barrel of mash which was “fermented and ready to make liquor,” and which if drunk to excess would produce intoxication. The conviction of the defendant did not, therefore, depend entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and it was not error, in the absence of a timely and appropriate written request, for the judge to omit to instruct the jury upon the law of circumstantial evidence.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the motion for a new trial was properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Anderson v. State, 122 S.E. 624, 32 Ga. App. 71, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 263 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

122 S.E. 624 (Anderson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Belcher v. State
103 S.E. 852 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)