Ellison v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ellison v. State

99 S.E. 636, 24 Ga. App. 27, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 390

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 13, 1919

Docket10514

StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.E. 636 (Ellison 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

Ellison v. State, 99 S.E. 636, 24 Ga. App. 27, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodwortji, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of appearing in an intoxicated condition on a public street in Rome. The only reason urged why a new trial should be granted is that “the evidence fails to show what produced the intoxication of plaintiff in error.” That he was drunk at the time and place alleged is not denied. Granting (but not deciding) that it is necessary for the State to show that “said drunkenness or intoxication may be caused by the excessive use of intoxicating wines, beers, liquors, or opiates,” the evidence was sufficient to show that the intoxication of the plaintiff in error was caused by the excessive drinking of beer, one of the intoxicating liquors named in the statute (Penal Code of 1910, § 442), for the violation of which he was indicted.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bloodwortji, J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of appearing in an intoxicated condition on a public street in Rome. The only reason urged why a new trial should be granted is that “the evidence fails to show what produced the intoxication of plaintiff in error.” That he was drunk at the time and place alleged is not denied. Granting (but not deciding) that it is necessary for the State to show that “said drunkenness or intoxication may be caused by the excessive use of intoxicating wines, beers, liquors, or opiates,” the evidence was sufficient to show that the intoxication of the plaintiff in error was caused by the excessive drinking of beer, one of the intoxicating liquors named in the statute (Penal Code of 1910, § 442), for the violation of which he was indicted.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 636, 24 Ga. App. 27, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellison-v-state-gactapp-1919.