Demonia v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Demonia v. State

17 S.E.2d 204, 66 Ga. App. 114, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 142

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 25, 1941

Docket29312.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 17 S.E.2d 204 (Demonia 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

Demonia v. State, 17 S.E.2d 204, 66 Ga. App. 114, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 142 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, J.

The officers arrested the defendant at a whisky still being operated at the time by others. The still was not located on the defendant’s premises and he was doing no act in aid of the operations. He had a tow sack, which was described as an “orange” sack. It was not shown to have had any connection with the matters or things used in the making of the whisky. While the defendant had on overalls, there were no identifying marks thereon to connect him with the operations of the still. We quote from the State’s evidence: “He asked us who reported him and we told him we couldn’t give him the information, and he said if we would *115 tell him who reported him, if we could reveal it, he said he would make a trade, and would swap us two for one if we would tell him who reported him. . . He was talking about different things, and he mentioned to us that if we told him who turned him up he would swap two for one with us. He told us that he would swap two for one if we would tell him who turned him up. . . ‘Looks like you are making good whisky’ [the officer stated to the defendant], and he told me that there was some over there if I wanted any. . . He asked me to speak a good word for him. He told me to speak a good word for him. . . He said he worked for us in the campaign and he wanted me to speak a good word for him. I suppose he wanted me to speak a good word to the court.”

The headnotes require no elaboration.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gardner, J.

The officers arrested the defendant at a whisky still being operated at the time by others. The still was not located on the defendant’s premises and he was doing no act in aid of the operations. He had a tow sack, which was described as an “orange” sack. It was not shown to have had any connection with the matters or things used in the making of the whisky. While the defendant had on overalls, there were no identifying marks thereon to connect him with the operations of the still. We quote from the State’s evidence: “He asked us who reported him and we told him we couldn’t give him the information, and he said if we would *115 tell him who reported him, if we could reveal it, he said he would make a trade, and would swap us two for one if we would tell him who reported him. . . He was talking about different things, and he mentioned to us that if we told him who turned him up he would swap two for one with us. He told us that he would swap two for one if we would tell him who turned him up. . . ‘Looks like you are making good whisky’ [the officer stated to the defendant], and he told me that there was some over there if I wanted any. . . He asked me to speak a good word for him. He told me to speak a good word for him. . . He said he worked for us in the campaign and he wanted me to speak a good word for him. I suppose he wanted me to speak a good word to the court.”

The headnotes require no elaboration.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.E.2d 204, 66 Ga. App. 114, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demonia-v-state-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack