Colwell v. State

Supreme Court of Georgia

Colwell v. State

37 S.E. 129, 112 Ga. 75, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 36

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 30, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 37 S.E. 129 (Colwell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Colwell v. State, 37 S.E. 129, 112 Ga. 75, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 36 (Ga. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, J.

1. The sale, without taking out the prescribed license, of a medicinal preparation capable of being used as a beverage, and which contains such a percentage of alcohol as that, if drunk to excess, it will produce intoxication, is unlawful, within the meaning of a statute prohibiting the sale without a-license of “ spirituous, malt, or any intoxicating liquors or bitters,” whether the vendor in making the sale intended that it should be used as a medicine or otherwise, and without reference to the purpose for which it was bought-by the purchaser. Chapman v. State, 100 Ga. 311.

2. The overruling of a demurrer to an indictment is not a proper ground of a, motion for a new trial.

3. The charges complained of were not erroneous for any of the reasons assigned. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing to-grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., and Little, J., absent.

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

Cobb, J.

1. The sale, without taking out the prescribed license, of a medicinal preparation capable of being used as a beverage, and which contains such a percentage of alcohol as that, if drunk to excess, it will produce intoxication, is unlawful, within the meaning of a statute prohibiting the sale without a-license of “ spirituous, malt, or any intoxicating liquors or bitters,” whether the vendor in making the sale intended that it should be used as a medicine or otherwise, and without reference to the purpose for which it was bought-by the purchaser. Chapman v. State, 100 Ga. 311.

2. The overruling of a demurrer to an indictment is not a proper ground of a, motion for a new trial.

3. The charges complained of were not erroneous for any of the reasons assigned. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing to-grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., and Little, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 S.E. 129, 112 Ga. 75, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colwell-v-state-ga-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack