Ealy v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ealy v. State

29 S.E.2d 101, 70 Ga. App. 536, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 38

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 1, 1944

Docket30361.

StatusPublished

This text of 29 S.E.2d 101 (Ealy 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

Ealy v. State, 29 S.E.2d 101, 70 Ga. App. 536, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 38 (Ga. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of possessing non-taxpaid whisky. The undisputed evidence was that nine gallons of such whisky was found in a house in which the defendant had formerly lived and rented from a real-estate company. The defendant denied that he was living there at the time the whisky was found, and the controlling issue in the case was whether he was or not. The evidence on this question, while conflicting, authorized the- jury to find that the defendant was renting the house at the time the whisky was discovered, and that he was maintaining two domiciles, one where he kept his whisky and a girl friend, and the other where he kept his wife. The overruling of the petition for certiorari based on the general grounds was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur. ■

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

Broyles, C. J.

The defendant was convicted of possessing non-taxpaid whisky. The undisputed evidence was that nine gallons of such whisky was found in a house in which the defendant had formerly lived and rented from a real-estate company. The defendant denied that he was living there at the time the whisky was found, and the controlling issue in the case was whether he was or not. The evidence on this question, while conflicting, authorized the- jury to find that the defendant was renting the house at the time the whisky was discovered, and that he was maintaining two domiciles, one where he kept his whisky and a girl friend, and the other where he kept his wife. The overruling of the petition for certiorari based on the general grounds was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Gardner, JJ., concur. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 S.E.2d 101, 70 Ga. App. 536, 1944 Ga. App. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ealy-v-state-gactapp-1944.