Cohen v. State

65 S.E. 1096, 7 Ga. App. 5, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 509
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 9, 1909
Docket2039; 2040
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 65 S.E. 1096 (Cohen 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
Cohen v. State, 65 S.E. 1096, 7 Ga. App. 5, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 509 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinions

Hill, C. J.

1. The prohibition statute (Acts 1907, p. 81) declares that it shall not be lawful for any person to keep on hand at his place of business any intoxicating liquor. The criminal act is the keeping on hand, and it is wholly immaterial for what purpose the intoxicating liquor is there kept on hand. Consequently, an accusation which charged that the defendant, on a day named, “did keep on hand at his place of business intoxicating liquor” was good in form and in substance; and on the trial any evidence as to the defendant’s purpose in keeping the intoxicating liquor on hand at his place of business was properly excluded as irrelevant and immaterial.

2. Evidence obtained by search of the defendant’s premises is admissible against him, although the search is made and the evidence is procured under a search warrant illegally issued, or even without color of legal authority. Hammock v. State, 1 Ga. App. 126 (58 S. E. 66) ; Williams v. State, 100 Ga. 511 (28 S. E. 624, 39 L. R. A. 269) ; Duren v. Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1 (53 S. E. 814).

3. A motion made by the defendant, at the conclusion of the evidence, to direct a verdict in his favor, because the statute on which the accusation was based was, for reasons stated, violative of the constitution, was properly overruled; and exceptions to the judgment overruling the motion present to 'this court no constitutional question in proper form for certification to the Supreme Court. Demurrer, or motion to quash the accusation, was the proper procedure; not motion to direct a verdict.

4. The evidence demanded the verdict, and any error of law was immaterial.

Judgment affirmed,

Russell, J., dissenting. Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Pendleton. July 7, 1909. Argued October 4, Decided November 9, 1909. F. M. Hughes, Morris Macks, for plaintiffs in error. C. D. Hill, solicitor-general, Lowry Arnold, solicitor, D. E. Johnston, contra.

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

Related

Clark v. State
226 S.E.2d 89 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Blackmon v. Brotherhood Protective Order
208 S.E.2d 483 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Vuitch v. State
271 A.2d 371 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1970)
Farley v. State
191 S.E. 262 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Phillips v. State
181 S.E. 233 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Fitzgerald v. State
181 S.E. 186 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Hammock v. State
134 S.E. 121 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Lakes v. Goodloe
242 S.W. 632 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1922)
Banks v. State
93 So. 293 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
Banks v. State
93 So. 293 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1921)
Knight v. State
1919 OK CR 238 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1919)
Wood v. First National Fire Insurance
94 S.E. 622 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Nowell v. State
88 S.E. 909 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
State v. Phillips
67 So. 651 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1915)
Griffin v. State
83 S.E. 871 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Brown v. State
84 S.E. 327 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Reddick v. State
83 S.E. 675 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Young v. State
76 S.E. 753 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Landreth v. State
73 S.E. 349 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Cassidy v. State
72 S.E. 939 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 S.E. 1096, 7 Ga. App. 5, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-state-gactapp-1909.