Ashworth v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ashworth v. State

180 S.E. 237, 51 Ga. App. 302, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 701

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 19, 1933

Docket24330

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.E. 237 (Ashworth v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashworth v. State, 180 S.E. 237, 51 Ga. App. 302, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinions

MacIntyre, J.

The defendant Ashworth and J. Lane were in the defendant’s car when an officer approached the car. J. Lane fled and sixty-five gallons of intoxicating liquor were found in the car. The defendant stated, not at that time but later, that he had rented the car to J. Lane, but heard that Lane was drinking, and went out to find Lane and the car, and to get possession of the car in order to keep it from being injured; that he found Lane several miles out from Dalton in the country, and at the time he (defendant) and the liquor were found in his ear he did not -know the whisky was in there; that the liquor belonged to Lane. Lane (who admitted he had a reputation for handling liquor) and another witness, who worked for the defendant, corroborated the defendant’s statement. However, there was testimony and there were facts and circumstances which discredited the testimony of the two corroborating witnesses and the defendant’s statement. ' The jury evidently did not accept the explanation, and were authorized, under the evidence, to find the defendant guilty.

Judgment affvrmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

The defendant Ashworth and J. Lane were in the defendant’s car when an officer approached the car. J. Lane fled and sixty-five gallons of intoxicating liquor were found in the car. The defendant stated, not at that time but later, that he had rented the car to J. Lane, but heard that Lane was drinking, and went out to find Lane and the car, and to get possession of the car in order to keep it from being injured; that he found Lane several miles out from Dalton in the country, and at the time he (defendant) and the liquor were found in his ear he did not -know the whisky was in there; that the liquor belonged to Lane. Lane (who admitted he had a reputation for handling liquor) and another witness, who worked for the defendant, corroborated the defendant’s statement. However, there was testimony and there were facts and circumstances which discredited the testimony of the two corroborating witnesses and the defendant’s statement. ' The jury evidently did not accept the explanation, and were authorized, under the evidence, to find the defendant guilty.

Judgment affvrmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E. 237, 51 Ga. App. 302, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashworth-v-state-gactapp-1933.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack