Coggins v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Coggins v. State

6 S.E.2d 916, 61 Ga. App. 589, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 175

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 18, 1940

Docket27935.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 6 S.E.2d 916 (Coggins 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

Coggins v. State, 6 S.E.2d 916, 61 Ga. App. 589, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 175 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

(Iuerry, J.

1. Where, in an accusation in the city court of a named county, the State charges that on a designated date the accused “did on the day and date aforesaid sell and baiter for a valuable consideration a certain quantity of intoxicating whisky,” the accusation is not subject to demurrer for failure to allege the name of the person to whom the whisky was sold, or the quantity or the consideration; nor is it lacking in sufficient definiteness to put the accused on notice of the offense charged, in order that a proper defense may be prepared. “In an indictment charging a violation of tjie State prohibition law, it is not necessary, so far as an alleged sale is concerned, to set out the facts as to the person to whom the liquor was sold, how much of the same was sold, or of what the valuable consideration for which it was sold consisted.” Hall v. State, 8 Ga. App. 747 (2) (70 S. E. 211). See Grimes v. State, 32 Ga. App. 541 (123 S. E. 918).

2. The remaining ■ assignments of error, except those based on general grounds, are too incomplete for consideration, it appearing that each assignment merely complains, without setting forth the testimony relative thereto, that the court erred in overruling the objections of the accused to the testimony of certain witnesses, naming them. See Muse v. State, 24 Ga. App. 427 (101 S. E. 198); Keramidas v. Rusch, 58 Ga. App. 615 (199 S. E. 590).

3. The evidence supported the verdict. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

(Iuerry, J.

1. Where, in an accusation in the city court of a named county, the State charges that on a designated date the accused “did on the day and date aforesaid sell and baiter for a valuable consideration a certain quantity of intoxicating whisky,” the accusation is not subject to demurrer for failure to allege the name of the person to whom the whisky was sold, or the quantity or the consideration; nor is it lacking in sufficient definiteness to put the accused on notice of the offense charged, in order that a proper defense may be prepared. “In an indictment charging a violation of tjie State prohibition law, it is not necessary, so far as an alleged sale is concerned, to set out the facts as to the person to whom the liquor was sold, how much of the same was sold, or of what the valuable consideration for which it was sold consisted.” Hall v. State, 8 Ga. App. 747 (2) (70 S. E. 211). See Grimes v. State, 32 Ga. App. 541 (123 S. E. 918).

2. The remaining ■ assignments of error, except those based on general grounds, are too incomplete for consideration, it appearing that each assignment merely complains, without setting forth the testimony relative thereto, that the court erred in overruling the objections of the accused to the testimony of certain witnesses, naming them. See Muse v. State, 24 Ga. App. 427 (101 S. E. 198); Keramidas v. Rusch, 58 Ga. App. 615 (199 S. E. 590).

3. The evidence supported the verdict. The court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.E.2d 916, 61 Ga. App. 589, 1940 Ga. App. LEXIS 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coggins-v-state-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack