Bishop v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bishop v. State

161 S.E. 271, 44 Ga. App. 290, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 677

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1931

Docket21733

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 S.E. 271 (Bishop 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

Bishop v. State, 161 S.E. 271, 44 Ga. App. 290, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 677 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Atlanta of possessing intoxicating liquor, and by writ of certiorari carried the ease to the superior court; the superior court passed an order overruling the certiorari and denying a. new trial, and to this order the defendant excepted. The undisputed evidence shows that two gallons of corp whisky were found by ah officer in a car which the defendant was driving, the same [291]*291being in cans in a package or box in the rear of the automobile. Defendant stated that he had loaned the car to some boys that evening, and that he did not know the liquor was in the car. However, he did not produce the boys, or even name them, and did not introduce any witness showing that the boys had his car. The evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

2. The allegation that the venue was not proved is without merit. The trial magistrate answered that the evidence showed that “the place where they found the two gallons of liquor in the automobile was in the City of Atlanta, Fulton county, Georgia.” This answer was untraversed; and the untraversed answer of the trial magistrate to a writ of certiorari is conclusive as to the facts and proceedings of the trial. Carter v. State, 3 Ga. App. 476 (60 S. E. 123).

3. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari and deny- • ing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The defendant was convicted in the criminal court of Atlanta of possessing intoxicating liquor, and by writ of certiorari carried the ease to the superior court; the superior court passed an order overruling the certiorari and denying a. new trial, and to this order the defendant excepted. The undisputed evidence shows that two gallons of corp whisky were found by ah officer in a car which the defendant was driving, the same [291]*291being in cans in a package or box in the rear of the automobile. Defendant stated that he had loaned the car to some boys that evening, and that he did not know the liquor was in the car. However, he did not produce the boys, or even name them, and did not introduce any witness showing that the boys had his car. The evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.

2. The allegation that the venue was not proved is without merit. The trial magistrate answered that the evidence showed that “the place where they found the two gallons of liquor in the automobile was in the City of Atlanta, Fulton county, Georgia.” This answer was untraversed; and the untraversed answer of the trial magistrate to a writ of certiorari is conclusive as to the facts and proceedings of the trial. Carter v. State, 3 Ga. App. 476 (60 S. E. 123).

3. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari and deny- • ing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E. 271, 44 Ga. App. 290, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-state-gactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack