Dennis v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dennis v. State

35 S.E.2d 569, 73 Ga. App. 95, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 400

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 18, 1945

Docket31035.

StatusPublished

This text of 35 S.E.2d 569 (Dennis 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

Dennis v. State, 35 S.E.2d 569, 73 Ga. App. 95, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 400 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

The defendant, Mattie Dennis, a married woman, was convicted of the operation of a lottery commonly denominated the “number game.” Exceptions were made on the general grounds only.

It was agreed by stipulation between counsel for the State and the defendant that on the day the accused was arrested there was in operation in Fulton County, Georgia, a lottery known as the “number game;,r and the manner in which the lottery was operated was detailed.

The evidence in effect was that the lottery tickets in question were found in two pocketbooks, together with $44.19 in one of them and $281 in the other. Both were in the house and in a room which she stated was hers and that no one else stayed there; that her husband was in the *96 Army overseas and sent her money. The defendant in her statement to the jury did not refer to one of the poeketbooks, but as to the other stated in- part: That a “lady came in there and asked if I played the numbers. I said, ‘No, 1 don’t play the numbers, I get money from my husband in Italy.’ I said, ‘He sends me money, 1 don’t fool with that thing.’ She said, ‘I’m going out, I will be back in a few minutes, so you keep that pocketbook in there with numbers in it.’ [She] left it in there.” Thus the jury were authorized to find that both of the poeketbooks were in her possession in her home in a room occupied only by her.

Decided October 18, 1945. J. 0. Ewing, Wesley B. Asinof, for plaintiff in error. E. E. Andrews, solicitor-general, Bindley W. Camp, solicitor, Burwobd T. Pye, contra.

The evidence authorized the verdict and the judge did not err in overruling and dismissing the certiorari. Stodghill v. State, 72 Ga. App. 47 (32 S. E. 2d, 863); Stovall v. State, 68 Ga. App. 27 (21 S. E. 914); Mills v. State, 71 Ga. App. 353 (30 S. E. 2d, 824); Hightower v. State, 63 Ga. App. 265 (10 S. E. 2d, 765).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

The defendant, Mattie Dennis, a married woman, was convicted of the operation of a lottery commonly denominated the “number game.” Exceptions were made on the general grounds only.

It was agreed by stipulation between counsel for the State and the defendant that on the day the accused was arrested there was in operation in Fulton County, Georgia, a lottery known as the “number game;,r and the manner in which the lottery was operated was detailed.

The evidence in effect was that the lottery tickets in question were found in two pocketbooks, together with $44.19 in one of them and $281 in the other. Both were in the house and in a room which she stated was hers and that no one else stayed there; that her husband was in the *96 Army overseas and sent her money. The defendant in her statement to the jury did not refer to one of the poeketbooks, but as to the other stated in- part: That a “lady came in there and asked if I played the numbers. I said, ‘No, 1 don’t play the numbers, I get money from my husband in Italy.’ I said, ‘He sends me money, 1 don’t fool with that thing.’ She said, ‘I’m going out, I will be back in a few minutes, so you keep that pocketbook in there with numbers in it.’ [She] left it in there.” Thus the jury were authorized to find that both of the poeketbooks were in her possession in her home in a room occupied only by her.

Decided October 18, 1945. J. 0. Ewing, Wesley B. Asinof, for plaintiff in error. E. E. Andrews, solicitor-general, Bindley W. Camp, solicitor, Burwobd T. Pye, contra.

The evidence authorized the verdict and the judge did not err in overruling and dismissing the certiorari. Stodghill v. State, 72 Ga. App. 47 (32 S. E. 2d, 863); Stovall v. State, 68 Ga. App. 27 (21 S. E. 914); Mills v. State, 71 Ga. App. 353 (30 S. E. 2d, 824); Hightower v. State, 63 Ga. App. 265 (10 S. E. 2d, 765).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 S.E.2d 569, 73 Ga. App. 95, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-v-state-gactapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack