Cowart v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cowart v. State

90 S.E. 286, 18 Ga. App. 677, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1186

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 18, 1916

Docket7585

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 286 (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, 90 S.E. 286, 18 Ga. App. 677, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1186 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. Where one is accused of the illegal sale of whisky, evidence that money passed to him and whisky was delivered by him as a single transaction is sufficient to support a finding that the transaction was a sale. Donaldson v. State, 3 Ga. App. 451 (60 S. E. 115); Hollingsworth v. State, 17 Ga. App. 725 (88 S. E. 213).

(a) The ease of Brown v. State, 17 Ga. App. 281 (86 S. E. 529), is distinguishable from this case. In that case the money was not “passed” and the whisky delivered simultaneously, and in the opinion of the majority of this court the circumstances in proof did not definitely establish such a close connection between the two acts as to compel the inference that they constituted a single transaction. At all events, any actual or seeming conflict between the decision in that case and the decisions in the Donaldson and Eoiling sioorth cases, supra, must be resolved in conformity with the rulings in the Donaldson and Bollingsworth cases, since these cases were decided by a full bench, whereas only two Judges agreed to the decision in the Brotan case; and besides, the Donaldson case is the older precedent.

2. The motion for a new trial was based upon the general grounds only. There was some evidence to authorize the" verdict, and this court can not usurp the function of the jury and arbitrarily set aside their finding, which has been approved by the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Wade, C. J.

1. Where one is accused of the illegal sale of whisky, evidence that money passed to him and whisky was delivered by him as a single transaction is sufficient to support a finding that the transaction was a sale. Donaldson v. State, 3 Ga. App. 451 (60 S. E. 115); Hollingsworth v. State, 17 Ga. App. 725 (88 S. E. 213).

(a) The ease of Brown v. State, 17 Ga. App. 281 (86 S. E. 529), is distinguishable from this case. In that case the money was not “passed” and the whisky delivered simultaneously, and in the opinion of the majority of this court the circumstances in proof did not definitely establish such a close connection between the two acts as to compel the inference that they constituted a single transaction. At all events, any actual or seeming conflict between the decision in that case and the decisions in the Donaldson and Eoiling sioorth cases, supra, must be resolved in conformity with the rulings in the Donaldson and Bollingsworth cases, since these cases were decided by a full bench, whereas only two Judges agreed to the decision in the Brotan case; and besides, the Donaldson case is the older precedent.

2. The motion for a new trial was based upon the general grounds only. There was some evidence to authorize the" verdict, and this court can not usurp the function of the jury and arbitrarily set aside their finding, which has been approved by the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 286, 18 Ga. App. 677, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowart-v-state-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack