Buchanan v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Buchanan v. State

128 S.E. 686, 34 Ga. App. 155, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 98

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 11, 1925

Docket16414

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 128 S.E. 686 (Buchanan 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

Buchanan v. State, 128 S.E. 686, 34 Ga. App. 155, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 98 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bkovxes, C. J.

In this State the husband is recognized by law as the head of the family, and where intoxicating liquors are kept in the house occupied by himself and his family, he is guilty of aiding and [156]*156abetting in the commission of a misdemeanor, if he knowingly allows such liquors to remain there, irrespective of who owns them or who put them there. And this is true although the husband may have previously deeded the premises to his wife, for a consideration of “natural love and affection.” See, in this connection, Isom v. State, 32 Ga. App. 75 (1) (122 S. E. 722) ; Basil v. State, 22 Ga. App. 765 (1) (97 S. E. 259) ; Norman v. State, 26 Ga. App. 62 (105 S. E. 450).

Decided June 11, 1925. Smith & Taylor, for plaintiff in error. Emmett Smith, solicitor, contra.

(a) Where, however (as in the instant case), the undisputed evidence showed that the house, and everything in it, except the whisky therein, was owned by the defendant’s wife, the presumption that the whisky found in the house belonged to the husband as the head of the family was rebutted; and, without this presumption, the evidence (which was wholly circumstantial) adduced upon the trial was insufficient to show that the whisky was put or kept there with the defendant’s consent or knowledge. In other words, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. It follows that the defendant’s conviction was contrary to law and that the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Bkovxes, C. J.

In this State the husband is recognized by law as the head of the family, and where intoxicating liquors are kept in the house occupied by himself and his family, he is guilty of aiding and [156]*156abetting in the commission of a misdemeanor, if he knowingly allows such liquors to remain there, irrespective of who owns them or who put them there. And this is true although the husband may have previously deeded the premises to his wife, for a consideration of “natural love and affection.” See, in this connection, Isom v. State, 32 Ga. App. 75 (1) (122 S. E. 722) ; Basil v. State, 22 Ga. App. 765 (1) (97 S. E. 259) ; Norman v. State, 26 Ga. App. 62 (105 S. E. 450).

Decided June 11, 1925. Smith & Taylor, for plaintiff in error. Emmett Smith, solicitor, contra.

(a) Where, however (as in the instant case), the undisputed evidence showed that the house, and everything in it, except the whisky therein, was owned by the defendant’s wife, the presumption that the whisky found in the house belonged to the husband as the head of the family was rebutted; and, without this presumption, the evidence (which was wholly circumstantial) adduced upon the trial was insufficient to show that the whisky was put or kept there with the defendant’s consent or knowledge. In other words, the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis. It follows that the defendant’s conviction was contrary to law and that the refusal to grant a new trial was error.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E. 686, 34 Ga. App. 155, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-v-state-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack