Cooper v. City of Fort Valley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cooper v. City of Fort Valley

78 S.E. 1097, 13 Ga. App. 169, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 85

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 11, 1913

Docket4982

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 78 S.E. 1097 (Cooper v. City of Fort Valley) 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

Cooper v. City of Fort Valley, 78 S.E. 1097, 13 Ga. App. 169, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 85 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. Where the accused is charged with a violation of a valid municipal ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of illegal sale, the possession of the liquors and proof of one sale will authorize a conviction. Sawyer v. Blakely, 2 Ga. App. 159 (58 S. E. 399).

2. The ease is squarely within the principle of numerous decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court, that when one is given money to purchase intoxicating liquor for the person from whom the money is received, and the recipient of the money goes away and subsequently returns with the liquor and delivers it to the person giving him the money, a prima facie ease is made that the one taking the money and delivering the liquor is either the seller- or interested in the sale, and the burden is upon him to show the contrary. Where the only effort to carry this burden is by the statement of the accused, the question is exclusively for the jury. Bray v. Commerce, 5 Ga. App. 605 (63 S. E. 596), and citations.

3. Ho error of law is complained of, and the evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. Where the accused is charged with a violation of a valid municipal ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for the purpose of illegal sale, the possession of the liquors and proof of one sale will authorize a conviction. Sawyer v. Blakely, 2 Ga. App. 159 (58 S. E. 399).

2. The ease is squarely within the principle of numerous decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court, that when one is given money to purchase intoxicating liquor for the person from whom the money is received, and the recipient of the money goes away and subsequently returns with the liquor and delivers it to the person giving him the money, a prima facie ease is made that the one taking the money and delivering the liquor is either the seller- or interested in the sale, and the burden is upon him to show the contrary. Where the only effort to carry this burden is by the statement of the accused, the question is exclusively for the jury. Bray v. Commerce, 5 Ga. App. 605 (63 S. E. 596), and citations.

3. Ho error of law is complained of, and the evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 1097, 13 Ga. App. 169, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-city-of-fort-valley-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack