Bacon v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bacon v. State

162 S.E. 163, 44 Ga. App. 572, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 387

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 12, 1932

Docket21999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 S.E. 163 (Bacon 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

Bacon v. State, 162 S.E. 163, 44 Ga. App. 572, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 387 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “It is unlawful for any person to knowingly permit or allow any one to possess or locate on his premises any apparatus for the distilling or manufacturing of intoxicating liquors. The finding of any such apparatus upon a person’s premises is prima facie evidence that the person in actual possession of the premises had knowledge of the existence of the apparatus upon the premises, and the burden of proof is upon him to show the want of such knowledge. Act of March 28, 1917, Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 18, see. 22.” Strickland v. State, 27 Ga. App. 321 (108 S. E. 124). And the question as to whether he carried that burden is one for the jury to determine. Neville v. State, 29 Ga. App. 232 (114 S. E. 720).

2. Under the foregoing rulings and the facts of the instant case, the defendant’s conviction was authorized, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworlh, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “It is unlawful for any person to knowingly permit or allow any one to possess or locate on his premises any apparatus for the distilling or manufacturing of intoxicating liquors. The finding of any such apparatus upon a person’s premises is prima facie evidence that the person in actual possession of the premises had knowledge of the existence of the apparatus upon the premises, and the burden of proof is upon him to show the want of such knowledge. Act of March 28, 1917, Ga. L. Ex. Sess. 1917, p. 18, see. 22.” Strickland v. State, 27 Ga. App. 321 (108 S. E. 124). And the question as to whether he carried that burden is one for the jury to determine. Neville v. State, 29 Ga. App. 232 (114 S. E. 720).

2. Under the foregoing rulings and the facts of the instant case, the defendant’s conviction was authorized, and the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke, J., concurs. Bloodworlh, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E. 163, 44 Ga. App. 572, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacon-v-state-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack