Cowart v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cowart v. State

82 S.E. 313, 14 Ga. App. 763, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 445

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 7, 1914

Docket5757

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 S.E. 313 (Cowart 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

Cowart v. State, 82 S.E. 313, 14 Ga. App. 763, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 445 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Roan, J.

On the trial of one charged with the offense of selling intoxicating liquors, proof that the accused received money from another person, accompanied by a request to procure whisky for liim, and thereafter went off, and soon returned and delivered to him the whisky requested, would cast on the accused the onus of showing where, how, and from whom he got the whisky. This burden would be successfully carried by the accused if, in corroboration of his own statement, he proved by an unimpeached witness that he had in fact bought the whisky from another person. Bray v. Commerce, 5 Ga. App. 605 (63 S. E. 590). If there was any evidence in the record tending to impeach this witness, a question of fact for the jury to settle would be presented; and in that event the verdict should stand, but following the decision in Bray v. Commerce, supra, as this court is compelled to do, the judgment must be reversed. See Grant v. State, 87 Ga. 265 (13 S. E. 265); Mack v. State, 116 Ga. 546 (42 S. E. 776) ; Gaskins v. State, 127 Ga. 51 (55 S. E. 1045) ; Davis v. State, 13 Ga. App. 142 (78 S. E. 866).

Judgment reversed.

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

Roan, J.

On the trial of one charged with the offense of selling intoxicating liquors, proof that the accused received money from another person, accompanied by a request to procure whisky for liim, and thereafter went off, and soon returned and delivered to him the whisky requested, would cast on the accused the onus of showing where, how, and from whom he got the whisky. This burden would be successfully carried by the accused if, in corroboration of his own statement, he proved by an unimpeached witness that he had in fact bought the whisky from another person. Bray v. Commerce, 5 Ga. App. 605 (63 S. E. 590). If there was any evidence in the record tending to impeach this witness, a question of fact for the jury to settle would be presented; and in that event the verdict should stand, but following the decision in Bray v. Commerce, supra, as this court is compelled to do, the judgment must be reversed. See Grant v. State, 87 Ga. 265 (13 S. E. 265); Mack v. State, 116 Ga. 546 (42 S. E. 776) ; Gaskins v. State, 127 Ga. 51 (55 S. E. 1045) ; Davis v. State, 13 Ga. App. 142 (78 S. E. 866).

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 313, 14 Ga. App. 763, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowart-v-state-gactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack