Floyd v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Floyd v. State

135 S.E. 516, 36 Ga. App. 128, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 822

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 9, 1926

Docket17630

StatusPublished

This text of 135 S.E. 516 (Floyd 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

Floyd v. State, 135 S.E. 516, 36 Ga. App. 128, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Floyd was convicted of violating the prohibition statute. The sole question to be determined is whether the evidence authorized the verdict. The jury had a right to believe from the evidence that the defendant had on his premises, underneath one of his houses, a barrel of fermented beer, and, a short distance away from his house, another ’barrel of fermented beer, together with a part of a still outfit which had been used, and that in addition the defendant stated to the officer who discovered it that the beer was his and that the still was his, and that he had operated the still for the making of whisky. The judge properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworlh, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Luke, J.

Floyd was convicted of violating the prohibition statute. The sole question to be determined is whether the evidence authorized the verdict. The jury had a right to believe from the evidence that the defendant had on his premises, underneath one of his houses, a barrel of fermented beer, and, a short distance away from his house, another ’barrel of fermented beer, together with a part of a still outfit which had been used, and that in addition the defendant stated to the officer who discovered it that the beer was his and that the still was his, and that he had operated the still for the making of whisky. The judge properly overruled the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., concurs. Bloodworlh, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E. 516, 36 Ga. App. 128, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/floyd-v-state-gactapp-1926.