Daniels v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Daniels v. State

99 S.E.2d 292, 95 Ga. App. 862, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 935

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 30, 1957

Docket36705

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 S.E.2d 292 (Daniels 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

Daniels v. State, 99 S.E.2d 292, 95 Ga. App. 862, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 935 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, J.

Courts will take judicial notice of the fact that the term “moonshine liquor” means whisky which has been illicitly, illegally, and clandestinely made, as it is common knowledge that that commodity known as moonshine whisky is an alcoholic liquor manufactured contrary to law in respect to which no tax is levied or may be collected. Everhart v. State, 194 Tenn. 272 (250 S. W. 2d 368, 369); Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853 (13 So. 2d 458, 461); State v. Tuten, 131 N. C. 701 (42 S. E. 443). See Code § 38-112, catchwords “Intoxicating liquors.” And, where, upon the trial of one charged with possessing non-tax-paid liquor, the jury is authorized to find from the evidence adduced that the defendant was found with a water glass full of moonshine whisky ii^ his hand in the home of a named person, for whose house the arresting officers had a search warrant, and no other persons were present except the wife and children of the owner of the house, the jury was authorized to find the defendant guilty of possessing non-tax-paid liquor, and as the whisky found in the defendant’s possession was illegal it could not come within any of the exceptions stated in Graham v. State, 150 Ga. 411 (104 S. E. 248). Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial based solely on the general grounds.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Carlisle, J.

Courts will take judicial notice of the fact that the term “moonshine liquor” means whisky which has been illicitly, illegally, and clandestinely made, as it is common knowledge that that commodity known as moonshine whisky is an alcoholic liquor manufactured contrary to law in respect to which no tax is levied or may be collected. Everhart v. State, 194 Tenn. 272 (250 S. W. 2d 368, 369); Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853 (13 So. 2d 458, 461); State v. Tuten, 131 N. C. 701 (42 S. E. 443). See Code § 38-112, catchwords “Intoxicating liquors.” And, where, upon the trial of one charged with possessing non-tax-paid liquor, the jury is authorized to find from the evidence adduced that the defendant was found with a water glass full of moonshine whisky ii^ his hand in the home of a named person, for whose house the arresting officers had a search warrant, and no other persons were present except the wife and children of the owner of the house, the jury was authorized to find the defendant guilty of possessing non-tax-paid liquor, and as the whisky found in the defendant’s possession was illegal it could not come within any of the exceptions stated in Graham v. State, 150 Ga. 411 (104 S. E. 248). Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial based solely on the general grounds.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E.2d 292, 95 Ga. App. 862, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniels-v-state-gactapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack