Bearden v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bearden v. State

139 S.E. 81, 37 Ga. App. 155, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 539

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 26, 1927

Docket18244, 18245; 18246, 18247

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.E. 81 (Bearden 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

Bearden v. State, 139 S.E. 81, 37 Ga. App. 155, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 539 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

These eases, while here on separate writs of error, are identical upon facts, the same errors, are assigned in each of the separate motions for a new trial, and they are briefed and considered together. The de[156]*156fondants in tlie trial court were charged with violating the prohibition statute. The State proved that in the automobile of the defendants there were some fifty cans, all of which contained some quantity of intoxicating liquor, except two or three which contained only gasoline. The defendants introduced no evidence, but in their statements to the jury claimed that they had bought the cans a short distance away from a man they had stopped for the purpose of buying from him some repairs for one of their automobile tires. The positive evidence and all the circumstances amply authorized the verdict of guilty.

Decided July 26, 1927. Joseph M. Lmg, for plaintiff in error. John G. Mitchell, solicitor-general, contra.

The special grounds of the motion which attack the charge of the court, -when the charge is considered in its entirety, are without merit. The defendants have been ably defended, and have had a fair and legal trial. The motion for a new trial in each case was properly overruled.

Judgments affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworih, J., eoneur.

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

Luke, J.

These eases, while here on separate writs of error, are identical upon facts, the same errors, are assigned in each of the separate motions for a new trial, and they are briefed and considered together. The de[156]*156fondants in tlie trial court were charged with violating the prohibition statute. The State proved that in the automobile of the defendants there were some fifty cans, all of which contained some quantity of intoxicating liquor, except two or three which contained only gasoline. The defendants introduced no evidence, but in their statements to the jury claimed that they had bought the cans a short distance away from a man they had stopped for the purpose of buying from him some repairs for one of their automobile tires. The positive evidence and all the circumstances amply authorized the verdict of guilty.

Decided July 26, 1927. Joseph M. Lmg, for plaintiff in error. John G. Mitchell, solicitor-general, contra.

The special grounds of the motion which attack the charge of the court, -when the charge is considered in its entirety, are without merit. The defendants have been ably defended, and have had a fair and legal trial. The motion for a new trial in each case was properly overruled.

Judgments affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworih, J., eoneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.E. 81, 37 Ga. App. 155, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bearden-v-state-gactapp-1927.