DeFreese v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

DeFreese v. City of Atlanta

76 S.E. 1077, 12 Ga. App. 201, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 490

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 30, 1913

Docket4199

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 1077 (DeFreese v. City of Atlanta) 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

DeFreese v. City of Atlanta, 76 S.E. 1077, 12 Ga. App. 201, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 490 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. Under the facts of this case, the recorder was fully authorized to conclude that the defense was merely a subterfuge, and that the accused was himself the seller, or, in any event, interested' in the sale, and was not an agent for a purchaser. All who participate, either directly or aeeessorily, in the violation of municipal ordinances may be treated as principals. There are no accessories in misdemeanors, but all who are in any wise concerned in the -violation of the law are principals. Christian v. State, 9 Ga. App. 61 (70 S. E. 258).

2. While, in a prosecution for violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for sale, it is essential to show that the liquid kept by the accused was in fact intoxicating, the fact that the accused accepted from a common carrier, as whisky, several shipments designated as whisky, receipting for them as whisky, authorizes the inference that the contents of the shipments were whisky, as they purported to be, and as the accused apparently understood them to be. See Tompkins v. State, 2 Ga. App. 639 (58 S. E. 1111). - Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, J.

1. Under the facts of this case, the recorder was fully authorized to conclude that the defense was merely a subterfuge, and that the accused was himself the seller, or, in any event, interested' in the sale, and was not an agent for a purchaser. All who participate, either directly or aeeessorily, in the violation of municipal ordinances may be treated as principals. There are no accessories in misdemeanors, but all who are in any wise concerned in the -violation of the law are principals. Christian v. State, 9 Ga. App. 61 (70 S. E. 258).

2. While, in a prosecution for violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting the keeping of intoxicating liquors for sale, it is essential to show that the liquid kept by the accused was in fact intoxicating, the fact that the accused accepted from a common carrier, as whisky, several shipments designated as whisky, receipting for them as whisky, authorizes the inference that the contents of the shipments were whisky, as they purported to be, and as the accused apparently understood them to be. See Tompkins v. State, 2 Ga. App. 639 (58 S. E. 1111). - Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 1077, 12 Ga. App. 201, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/defreese-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack